As expected, Hope is chickening out on the interview. She has no interest in an honest discussion – she simply wants to cut and paste and create a bunch of lies. That is how the crooks on the left operate. They can’t win a fair fight, so they cheat – about everything.
I won’t do the interview unless you produce citation showing these many other interviews you have already done. Context. I’ve asked 12 times now.
Steve Goddard
You are looking for material to hack into a hit piece. I won’t provide that for you.
Don’t worry Steve, I’ll interview you.
So, how about this Global thingy, is it Warming or what?
Do you ever find it annoying that people could just read your blog and learn a lot but can’t even be bothered? How about that?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on my reply to this facetious, deleterious, specious material .. I answer below …
I’d love for you to confront Josh Fox over his fraudulent film.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
No matter how many times I point out that your can not cite proof the case has been heard (it hasn’t):
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/05/free-speech-case-springs-fracking-dispute/
You continue to make the same false post ..
“Sorry sweety, but when your guys are caught committing fraud, they are relegated to a level below Bigfoot hunters.” YOU (it’s “sweetie” BTW)
I cited you MY video of the actual well and isotopic testing from the EPA linking the gas in the water to the gas in Steve’s well:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ab2d81eb088f4a7e85257359003f5339/713f73b4bdceb126852577f3002cb6fb!OpenDocument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
“Scientists: Tests prove fracking to blame for flaming Parker County wells”
http://www.wfaa.com/story/local/2015/03/10/14223694/
You have seen ALL with your own eyes .. yet you continue the lie .. why? (Hint: Well trained)
NOW, CITE proof the CASE has been HEARD!
Sweety, you are quoting known frauds and liars. What part of that do you not get? Your sources have absolutely zero credibility, just like you.
A judge already ruled that they committed fraud. All you are doing by defending them is admitting you have no issue with liars and frauds.
Frauds of a feather flock together.
You are below any consideration of decent people.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Will YOU confront Phelim McAleer about HIS lies?
http://fracknationreview.blogspot.com/
He is the origin of the of your mistake about Steve’s case.
“Why would anyone even give the time of day to a POS who supports proven frauds.”
Gator69
I don’t know .. they still seem to allow you to speak here.
See the words “prima facia” in the ruling you are citing .. do you know what it means????
If you can find a judge that ruked he lied, yes.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Eat S sweety.
“maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim ”
You have no idea what this means …..
Prima Facia = based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
Found another ruling liar? 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
The ruling was a Prima Facia case, gator .. you clearly do not know what that means as you repeatedly ad hom me alt the way down this board.
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
I can take the insults, I’m just curious if it is at all possible to get a well trained denier to face truth ..
http://www.northamericashaleblog.com/2014/08/27/texas-supreme-court-to-hear-defamation-case-involving-fracking-claims/
How do you breathe without assistance? 😆
The court rulinb has never been refuted. What part of that do you not get? It stands.
And what about this?
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
I can hardly carry on this conversation when there is no reply button and you repeat crap like this with every post “You lying bitch.”
The verbiage you post below is a bit from Range in their case against Lipsky – it’s a very complicated case .. THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN HEARD .. tho con media – AND YOU – claim Steve is guilty.
The CITE itself would be a good one for you to read through:
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
Since it’s your cite .. I’m sure you can point us to where it posts the results of the ACTUAL HEARING … s/?
This water contamination was determined by isotopic testing to be production gas from a nearby Range well. Yes, the Texas railroad commission, as fully purchased reps of the FF industry claims the contam was naturally occuring.
Please read the deposition from Pecks Water drilling proving that is untrue.
And the TRRC was found to be a bed of corruption:
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/10/13649598/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/railroad-commission-of-texas-is-getting-overhaul.html
http://www.texasobserver.org/railroad-commission-denton-fracking-ban/
Dumbass, you are referring to another matter. When that case has been heard and received a ruling, feel free to come back and discuss it.
I have repeatedly shown you that a court ruled that Lipsky committed fraud. It’s over.
Thanks for giving Tony all the ammunition he needs to destroy you. 😆
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
“Dumbass, you are referring to another matter.” gator69
No, I am quoting from the citation YOU post:
“Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that …
… Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with
….regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.”
There is only 1 case between Lipsky & Range.
Again, tho you and CON media claim Steve, Alisa and Shyla have been found guilty of faking the contamination .. in reality THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
All you are doing is forwarding the accusations make by a FOSSIL FUEL company against their own water contamination victims.
“Please show me where the courts have cleared Lipsky from fraud.” Gator69
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD, as I have been saying to you for 2 days, for which you have called me a lying POS bitch who should STFU.
At least you can admit, now that you see, the case HAS never been heard. Con media is lying.
So you are claiming that a judge did not rule…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Is that your claim liar? 😆
@Gator 69 (the lack of reply buttons here is maddening) We’ll take it from the top.
“so your continual unwillingness to admit your sources commit fraud proves you are a fraud an liar. According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”” GATOR69
“According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:”
Please, stop making a fool of yourself and read the finding – it is a procedural finding regarding the antislpp case.
Do you NOT KNOW what “maintain prima facia case” means?
The ruling simply allowed the case to continue – a later write found Steve, Alisa and Shyla innocent of the conspiracy charges:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1628741.html
_____
“Sweety, you are quoting known frauds and liars. What part of that do you not get? Your sources have absolutely zero credibility, just like you.
A judge already ruled that they committed fraud. All you are doing by defending them is admitting you have no issue with liars and frauds.
Frauds of a feather flock together.”
You are claiming the Texas Supreme Court is a Fraud:
“13-0928 (12/04/2014)
In re Steven Lipsky
from Parker County and the Fort Worth Court of Appeals
For Lipsky and Shyla Lipsky: Brent M. Rosenthal, Dallas
For Range Production and Range Resources: John H. Cayce, Fort Worth
For consultant Alisa Rich: Shawn M. McCaskill, Dallas
In this mandamus action arising from allegations that fracking contaminated a home-water supply, the principal issue is whether “clear and specific” evidence supporting defamation and conspiracy claims in order to thwart their dismissal requires a heightened proof standard. Lipsky and his wife, the homeowners, and Rich, an environmental consultant, moved under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act to dismiss a lawsuit against them. Range, the minerals producer drilling near the Lipsky home, claimed Lipsky defamed the company by alleging it was corrupt and “owned” state oil-and-gas regulators and by fabricating a video showing a water hose’s end afire after he put a match to it. Range also alleged the Lipskys and Rich conspired to defame it. The Citizens’ Participation Act permits a suit to be dismissed if it was filed to stymie a defendant’s free-speech rights, but to avoid dismissal the plaintiff must present “clear and specific” evidence supporting the suit’s essential elements. The trial court denied the Lipskys’ and Rich’s dismissal motions. The court of appeals reversed in part, dismissing claims against Mrs. Lipsky and the consultant but permitting the suit against Steven Lipsky to proceed.
http://www.texasappellatewatch.com/oral-argument/#sthash.ecaLWJCq.dpuf”
IS THAT a FRAUD???? The Texas court system is LYING??
Now, CITE your proof the case has been heard .. all you are repeatedly citing is a procedure ruling .. anyone who take 5 minutes to read about the case can see that (
unless they are brainwashed by con media .. then no help is available for them)
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Now STFU.
“maintain a prima facia case ”
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
“based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.”
The case has never been heard, Gator.
You are continually making the same very easy to fix mistake.
Now, you have read the facts from the Texas Supreme court,you have seen the water well yourself, you have heard the isotopic testing from the EPA and you have read that the EPA’s IG upheld the science and the Order they issued in 2010 ..
yet you still call me a POS for stating the facts.
It is 100% impossible to aide a poor soul who has bought the fossil fuel industry’s talking points. Even if they see the evidence themselves, with their own eye – their indoctrination will not allow them to see what they SEE.
Thank you for your service in proving this again here today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
You lying bitch.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
PRIMA FACIA:
“Found another ruling liar? :lol:”” GATOR69
WOW – NO FROM YOUR CITE .. DO YOU NOT SEE IT IN THE 2ND PARAGRAPH??
“Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim ”
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
Wow – you even post the very facts, then still claim I am lying .. how deep down this rabbit hole do we want to go?
Liar, the hearing you have been shown a dozen times has been heard, and they found Lipsky to be a liar and fraud.
Your ignorant strawman argument does not address the court ruling of fraud on the part of Lipsky.
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
STFU.
“Liar, the hearing you have been shown a dozen times has been heard, and they found Lipsky to be a liar and fraud.
Your ignorant strawman argument does not address the court ruling of fraud on the part of Lipsky.” Gator69
So you admit you have no idea WHAT the “Prima Facia” sentence actually means .. IN YOUR OWN CITE!!
@gator69
‘ the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to ”
Range sued their own water contamination victims even after EPA isotopic testing proves the match between the gas in Steve’s water well and Range’s nearby production gas.
YOUR commentary here supports the right of a corp to RUIN a citizens water then SUE THEM!
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ab2d81eb088f4a7e85257359003f5339/713f73b4bdceb126852577f3002cb6fb!OpenDocument
How exactly do YOU THINK Steve put Range’s production gas IN his water well? Can you noodle that? He would have had to steal the gas from Range’s well and pump it into his own to fool the EPA .. can you ‘splain how that’s possible?
THAT is Range’s accusation YOU promote here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Sorry liar, but the court has ruled. Obviously you are lying again. If you want to provide proof after the next case, fine, but you are lying about the Lipsky’s. No surprise, liars stick together.
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
What’s wrong, can’t overturn the court ruling? 😆
“I have repeatedly shown you that a court ruled that Lipsky committed fraud. It’s over.”
From YOUR POSTED CITATION: (You KEEP posting it, but not SEEING IT)
“Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim ”
YOU post it .. then you claim it says the court RULED on the case .. you have NO IDEA WHAT you are talking about as you run around here insulting others!
Please show me where the courts have cleared Lipsky from fraud.
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
Still waiting liar. 😆
Is she changing her name from Hope to Fear ?
No. Changing to; Hopeless Piece.
Hopeless Debater. I recognized her photo and user name immediately because she is the person I jousted with for months in the comment section at my own Heartland ICCC9 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6OhfbGHJqo She says I’m a liar and I repeatedly proved she can’t back up any assertion she hurls. Lengthy comment reading, but you’ll see how she embarrasses herself there.
I love the 9th grade mockery – so astute for people of your mindset .. please do address my reply below …
I love showing how you support known frauds! 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
I told you repeatedly – the case has never been heard. What you cite was a procedural hearing: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
And though you can not cite any proof that that case has been heard (as there is none)
… you continually repeat the lie – why is that? ( I know)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Yes, a hearing in which a judge ruled your heroes committed fraud
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
But no matter, you are all about lies and fraud, thanks for confirming this. 😆
“Yes, a hearing in which a judge ruled your heroes committed fraud” Gator.
No, the judge did NOT RULE Steve was a fraud.
Calm down .. read the Loftin ruling again. If it found Steve guilty why is the case in the Texas Supreme court now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Why do YOU think Loftin has to recuse himself from the case??
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
Dumbass, read the ruling…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Now STFU.
“the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim ”
You are making a fool of yourself, Gator.
So where is the ruling that overturns this ruled case of fraud you lying bitch?
“Yes, a hearing in which a judge ruled your heroes committed fraud
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:” Gator69
WRONG!
You sorry lying bitch. Show me where that is wrong.
God you are the biggest liar I have ever met! 😆
Address – number 1 Bossy Cow Street, Loud Town
Could be she’s scared of interviewing you and feels she needs to study prior interviews to allay her fears.
Just in case anyone else is wondering, here is the discussion:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/
It’s hilarious. They’re panicking about what would happen IF Antarctica happened to start melting. Of course, completely ignoring the fact that it’s actually expanded to a modern record extent.
And, good old Hope Forpeace is a completely confected, catastrophist loonie:
https://disqus.com/by/hope_forpeace/
OK, I just spent a good 15 minutes reading the comments on that ecowatch website, and it did my head in. The religious zeal and logical inconsistency of the believers is just insane – literally, like arguing with an insane person. I just couldn’t do the, “OK, so give me a reference…oh, that’s an oil-sponsered reference, give me a real one…oh, that’s irrelevant…etc.”
Sickeningly ignorant.
So Oil funded is what they use to reject reality.
GEE, does that mean they have to reject all the science that comes out of all the universities that take oil funded grants?
Oh what fun you could have with that bit of twisting the logic back to bite them. Of course the comment would be deleted and you would be banned. Can’t have the true believers woken out of their stupor.
They can’t see the extreme irony when they refer to skepticism as denialism. They’re the consummate science deniers.
And yes, they keep their believers believing by summarily removing dissenting posts that shed scientific light into their worship services. When you have built a house of cards, you cannot have any dissent blowing in the wind.
Oil funding on WUWT post with the notation
“Now researchers from University of Southern Denmark, China National Petroleum Corporation and others have looked deep into Earth’s history and can reveal that orbital forcing of climate change contributed to shaping the Earth’s climate 1.4 billion years ago.”
lead to my comment. – China National Petroleum Corporation! – boy talk about an alarmist brain logic conundrum.
“China, communist their good – Petroleum Corporation their pure evil. China, communist their good – Petroleum Corporation their pure evil. China, communist their good – Petroleum Corporation their pure evil. China, communist their good – Petroleum Corporation their pure evil.”
What fun.
“So Oil funded is what they use to reject reality.”
No, I think very few in the fossil fuel’s propaganda machine are paid, by industry or dark money.
Most are just well trained to spin, trained by the misleading material they ingest.
The paid groups Heartland, Cornwall AFP are the seed of much of that .. paid by industry to sow doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.
Hey Anto! “The religious zeal and logical inconsistency of the believers is just insane – literally, like arguing with an insane person.”
I think that you are correct. It is — literally — like arguing with an insane person. They are insane in the most basic form of insanity; they are unable to correctly perceive reality. I see similar expressions of insanity throughout our society. The self-proclaimed “Progressives” are an example of insanity in the political sphere. You can find any number of examples of insanity in today’s higher education system.
Why is this? Why has such a large percentage of people gone insane?
My speculation is this. We know that the human mind is fluid and conforms itself to a large extent according to the shape of whatever container surrounds it. Take a child, let him be raised by wolves and past a certain age he will never recover. He will never become human in any normal sense. Having never been exposed to and been conditioned by human society, he will be, for pragmatic purposes, a wolf. We now find ourselves in a society where people have grown to adulthood increasingly insulated not only from the physical world of trees and grass and streams, but even insulated from the consequences of their own choices. We live in an air-bag world where all impacts are cushioned. We celebrate and support single mothers who refused to make the hard choice of only copulating with a responsible mate. We live in a world where children who do not (for whatever reason) learn in school are passed along to higher grades. We live in a world where “my feelings have been hurt” is more important than “was I in the wrong?” Several of the major industries in the country are based on make-believe (motion pictures, mainstream news, and foreign policy).
Do the CAGW people seem insane? They are. If they were sane, logic and facts would sway them. They are also, sadly, part of a much larger crowd.
When I first began to become disillusioned by facts surrounding AGW, I was so entrenched in my beliefs it took me a couple years to become convinced. I kept looking for cracks in the skeptical arguments – but that exercise only led me to find more cracks in the AGW argument.
I began to share what my studies led me to, with friends. Logically, I assumed ( but wrongly) that presenting the facts would change their beliefs, also.
What happened next – I was shocked; shocked I tell you. It was as if their ears had been cut off and their eyeballs plucked out. They couldn’t hear, see, comprehend or accept anything I shared with or showed them.
I had once been similarly brainwashed as they. But I had an open mind, and assumed that their minds were open also. All they needed was someone (like me) to present it to them (we were not getting it in the news). Not a chance. They could only recite what they had learned from the pack of wolves. They didn’t want to know about the science – and kept repeating the lie that 97% of the scientists around the globe believed, so I must be wrong. They would not, could not acknowledge anything I shared with them. After a few years, I gave up.
Being brainwashed is one thing. The inability to de-program is quite another. So, perhaps not being able to learn from logic and facts is a form of insanity.
Hey Disillusioned! “Being brainwashed is one thing. The inability to de-program is quite another. ”
I think you are right.
We are all brainwashed to one degree or another, and on all matter of subjects. Like you, I initially had no real doubts about CAGW — but then again, at the no-doubts stage I had not done any research. All I knew on the subject was what I read or heard in popular press. Once I started looking in to it, I began to see the flaws.
You make a good point. “The inability to de-program is quite another. ” Even admitting that we are all brainwashed, the sad fact is, there are many people who are unable to be de-programed. The one common denominator I see in that group is this. Those who cannot be de-programed seem to have a strong emotional barrier defending their belief system. Talk to someone about “what is the deepest point of the ocean” and they can respond impartially and unemotionally, even if they disagree with you. Talk with a CAGW supporter and chances are they will become angry, insulting and dismissive. How many times have you had this happen? You mention to someone that you do not think CO2 is a problem and their angry response is along the lines of “So you don’t care about pollution?! You would just as soon have all the oceans dead and poisons everywhere, huh?!” The emotional monkey-on-the-back of CAGW is, I think, the main reason why its supporters cannot discuss the subject rationally.
Thanks for the reply Jason.
The ability to de-program is the ability to think for oneself.
Hey Jason! I was programmed as a young man, and had to break some of that programming when the facts proved me wrong. It is easier for some than others, and you are right, emotions have much to do with that.
Humanity has left brained thinkers and right brained ‘thinkers’, both use both sides, but one side is almost always dominant. Left brained thinkers use logic and reason to make decisions, whereas right brained ‘thinkers’ lead with emotions and feelings. I am a left brained thinker almost to a fault, emotions are the last thing I consider when making decisions, but I do consider them. So for me, embracing an idea that is not supportable with logic is abhorrent, and when I am shown strong evidence that I am wrong, changing my mind is not a problem.
I get emotional when idiots cannot see logic or reason.
Hey gator, hey Disillusioned, I just wanted to put in a quick comment that I am grateful to have smart, rational adults (like you two) to interact with. When I see mainstream news, I get up stupider than when I sat down. When I talk with you guys (and there are a lot of you!) I get up smarter. Thanks!
(And Tony, thank YOU for hosting!)
Jason, you’re welcome. Wow, I almost don’t feel worthy of that. I still have a lot to learn. This is like a onion – six years on and I’m still becoming disillusioned. But the propagandists no longer intimidate me with their talking points like they once did. I know so much more than they do now; I know their “trained talking points” now, and I can almost predict which propaganda sites they’ll cite and quote from when they smear their propagandist feces around.
The “cabal” (to borrow from the not-so-peaceful slandering propagandist) is powerful and scary; skeptics are bullied to shut-up by those who cannot risk losing cabal funding, tenure; they’re walking a tightrope. It is a crying shame. Very revealing interview here by one who has been taken down a notch at a time by the cabal: http://blog.heartland.org/2015/03/heartland-daily-podcast-david-legates-climate-witch-hunt/
Still, CAGW as a hypothesis has fallen completely apart. And as Mother Nature continues giving her middle finger to the propagandists, it seems they just keep getting noisier, meaner and more slanderous. And the AGW-based regulations and taxes continue being introduced unabated. It is like the Twilight Zone. Up is down, down is up…SMH
Thanks for your submissions also.
Jason – that’s the first rational explanation I’ve heard for the rank stupidity that surrounds us – thanks.
With CAGW, since I’d already heard (back in the ’70s I think…) that the human component of annual CO2 production was roughly 1/1000, I figured that, even if we eliminated all human CO2, we’d make bugger-all difference. So – CAGW was B/S
“”While ice is growing in East Antarctica because of cooler water and air, it isn’t compensating for the amount of melting in West Antarctica, now called “unstoppable.” ”
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26181
Are you using one part of the equation to sum up the whole? That’s the definition of spin.
“Two studies find the collapse of the enormous West Antarctic ice sheet is inevitable and unstoppable, ensuring world sea level rise of 4-12 feet. At 10 feet higher, the ocean would consume 28,800 square miles of US land, where 12.3 million people live today.”
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25707
Also .. do you believe it is possible to stop people from down;loading and using videos from youtube? Steve/Tony does.
Yes or no?
What did Josh Fox say when you ripped into him for his fraudulent footage?
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
I told you repeatedly – the case has never been heard.
What you cite was a procedural hearing: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
And though you can not cite any proof that that case has been heard (as there is none)
… you continually repeat the lie – why is that? ( I know)
http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2014/06/tests-prove-fracking-blame-flaming-parker-county-wells/
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ab2d81eb088f4a7e85257359003f5339/713f73b4bdceb126852577f3002cb6fb!OpenDocument
http://www.wfaa.com/story/local/2015/03/10/14223694/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Now .. you are a great case where I can display that no manner of fact can disabuse you of the notions conservative media has planted in you mind. Yes, Con media claims the case has been heard and Lispky is guilty – it’s a LIE, friend.
PLEASE review the material and face the fact that you CAN NOT CITE ANY PROOF That the case has been heard – there have been MANY procedural rulings on the Anti-Slapp aspect… THAT is what Con media is quoting and fooling you with!
CITE YOUR PROOF!
Sweety, justb how dumb are you? You keep babbling about a case that has not been heard, and I have shown you a ruling saying your buddies committed fraud.
Just hoe gullible, or dishonest are you? 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
You have proven yourself a fraud and liar. Nice job! 😆
“”While ice is growing in East Antarctica because of cooler water and air, it isn’t compensating for the amount of melting in West Antarctica, now called “unstoppable.” ”
Until it actually stops, and then they will be saying ‘now called stopped’
The bunny boiler backs off in fear.
I wonder how the child-mind is coping.
Poor thing had a battered ego to start with !!
She must, by now, realised just what totally worthless and ignorant non-entity she is.
Her puerile effort at self-aggrandisement has fallen flat on its face, in a load of wet cow dung.
And we are soooo laughing !!! 🙂
So funny how poorly you read me. Please read my replies here to see my ego is in fine shape after destroying a few arguments and exposing a few well trained deniers.
The need to demean others usually comes from very low self esteem.
I’m sorry for you.
“she simply wants to cut and paste and create a bunch of lies”
That is who she is…. . It is her soul and her whole existence.
And she KNOWS it. !!
Please read the actual exchange between me and Steve/Tony and see if you are correct!
I replied below.
That outcome was obvious from the beginning.
AGW is scientifically bankrupt, and types like her avoid scientific discussion of the inconvenient truth as if it were the plague. All they have are the fallacies of popularity and authority – and especially demagogy – to argue their case. They don’t want an honest discussion. An honest discussion of the facts destroys their message every time.
In fact it was Steve who made a request that I could never fulfill .. to guarantee the footage would never be downloaded from youtube and edited in any way. If it was it was my responsibility.
Would you agree to that? (full comment below)
Pay no attention to the lying POS.
Hope comes on asking for an interview and now starts demanding other info. Crazy fruit. Surely if she was good at her job she could extract all she wanted and without it being edited.
Hope attacked Tony: “You would never weather an interview with me. I will destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease and broadcast it….”
She went on: “Your polemics are weak – I can easily cite millions made by oil paid denier scientists. If you believe Big Oil is being bullied by the Big Green’s funding, you are about to get exposed as an oil paid talking points mindless parrot.”
And on: “And I see you can not address the question about how they make all those math based lies add up. It’s an inane position and you know it.”
And on: “I’d advise you to put on your seat belt. The industry funded climate change denial machine will humiliate the radical right conservative cause this year – and your cabal will be seen as the humanity destroying profit machine it is, lying ot the American people to defend the massive fossil fuel entrenched power.”
And on: “I’d advise you to run. You are simply giving me more and more material proving my point. Know this – I am here to expose your career as a misinformationist. I won’t be swayed and I will achieve my goal.”
And on: “You are industry trained .. you repeat industry’s propaganda talking points .. would you need me to list those for you?”
Seeking truth in an interview was never her goal. Rather, what Hope did was admit to her vendetta, her mission, to destroy somebody she ignorantly, foolishly believes has been trained by Big Oil. Smearing and slandering someone with blatant lies, and threatening to destroy them, is not my idea of a journalist “asking for an interview.”
+1
“Hope attacked Tony: “You would never weather an interview with me. I will destroy your thin facade of intellectual acumen with ease and broadcast it….””
100% accurate … and I have already done so .. please read my reply below with the full exchange Steve/Tony EDITED to LIE to Y’ALL!!
You’re picking at nits. He didn’t “LIE”. He quoted you.
About those who “LIE”, you said, “If you believe Big Oil is being bullied by the Big Green’s funding, you are about to get exposed as an oil paid talking points mindless parrot.”
You started out looking to find out who was financing Steve, and to expose him. Yet later on when someone brought it up, you denied saying anything about payment from oil industry – and changed it – that you said he has been “trained” with oil talking points.
If you’re going to tell lies, you gotta remember them. Or, you can stop lying. That makes it a much easier way to live. You don’t seam to learn from your mistakes.
seem
I am not sure how she is now living with herself.
She either now realizes just how ignorant of Climate she is or she already new the facts, but chooses to ignore them and push her beliefs.
Either way she is ignorant or corrupt, it can’t be much fun living with that, but maybe being as it is religous type zeal she can rationalise it as the “Means Justifying the End” and we all know where that leads.
I would not be surprise if Hope is well aware that scientifically she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If she thought ‘the science’ was solid she would be confident she could win an un-rigged debate.
However truth is not a high priority with the militant left. Transforming the West into a third world communist country is the priority. This is a much higher priority than ethics or truth. It is why you can not reason with the militant left. It is why skeptics are blocked from the MSM and even from comments. It is why skeptic scientists are savaged not only by the MSM but by Congressmen. It is why Voter Fraud was used to install a Communist in the White House who ignores the Constitution and why Congress goes along.
BACKGROUND
As Dr Tim Ball pointed out Overpopulation [is] The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming The fear in government circles goes all the way back to ~1964 through ~1974 when there was a world grain crisis.
If you look at the 1974 CIA report “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems” it tells you population outstripping food was a very real worry.
At the same time that CIA report was being written The Club of Rome report titled The Limits to Growth was produced in 1972. This was the same year Dr George Kukla and Dr. Robert Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon the world might return to a Little Ice Age. Nixon setup a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies.
“A persistent concern of Lamb and others was that the world might return to a Little Ice Age like that of 300 years ago. But the improving knowledge of glacial history, and especially the apparent brevity of warm interglacials, prompted anxiety about a full-blown ice age.” — Nigel Calder. link
QUOTES by Paul Ehrlich and his buddy John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar from that same time period.
Note that Anna Ehrlich, paul’s wife is a member of the Club of Rome. This is the group Hope is taking direction from whether she knows it or not.
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. – Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power” — May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report
“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the US. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” —
– Paul Ehrlich, author of Population Bomb and Population Explosion.
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s and 1980’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” — Paul Ehrlich – the first sentence of his 1968 “The Population Bomb”
“This vast tragedy, however, is nothing compared to the nutritional disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s) … A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.” — Paul Ehrlich, “The End of Affluence” (1974), p.21
““A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” — John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/quotes.html
These quotes were made BEFORE CAGW. CAGW was just the whip used to drive the sheeple in the direction the elite had decided we should go. So we are now stuck with plans made back in the 1970’s to rein in economic and population growth.
“It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” — George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
Which population are they talking about becoming a problem? I keep hearing about countries like Greece or Japan having a 0 birth rate, the US has 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day which means they’ll be dying off over the next 20 years and they were 25% of the US population. If you do a search on the internet for US birth rates it has fallen for 6 years to a level below that which is needed for a stable population. So which countries are overpopulating, third world countries? We know that industrialization lowers birth rates, yet the same people crying about overpopulation don’t want third world countries to industrialize. Another example of the elites creating the problem they whine about?
I agree with you Nancy. The best method of population control is a high standard of living. Most first world countries have zero or negative population growth. That is why they are importing people from third world countries.
The Eugenics movement goes all the way back to the Fabians, the Webbs, Shaw and Margaret Sanger. More important it goes back to Huxley and UNESCO link
The Eugenicists are into forced sterilization. There are plenty of sites commenting on the subject. Such as this one – link
It sounded like a kook site so I went looking for validating evidence. I found it.
The USDA’s funding development of a spermicidal corn by Epicyte was the easy one. (Most links are now gone from the internet.)
The more interesting validation was a UN population survey.
HMMmmm, From the link above on forced sterilizations:
HopeForpeace is incapable of discussing science. After ridiculing her a number of times, I posted a comment full of science showing more natural solar forcing during the period of late 20th century warming than ghg forcing.
She dodged and obfuscated, doing a clown dance totally avoiding the science that I posted, and accused me of not being able to discuss science. I finally boiled it down to which forcing numbers were larger, the natural forcing or the ghg forcing, and again, she refused to answer. The whole exchange can be found here: http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/#comment-1897687415 Go to the top to see the science that I presented.
She’s a troll who knows nothing about science.
“She’s a troll who knows nothing about science.”
She is an insane troll. Seriously, I admire your attempt to get her to discuss the science. I wish that she were open to the discussion. I mean, she seemed to think that those were just random papers that you pulled up to support your OWN argument. She did not even recognize the implications of the studies you referenced.
Poor crazy woman… Be happy that you are not in her shoes.
Why don;t you check this board and see if you can answer the replies “old one” could not?
http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/
Here is some of the wonderful work Mr oldman did on that board:
“”You scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cultists have a mental deficiency, total moronidc idiot. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the a$s! You pathetic liar, pathetically ignorant twit, whooped your a$s! Hilarious that you now attempt to defend your sorrya$s! Delusional as usual, scientifically illiterate, ignorant doomsday climate cultist that butt-whooping you got! Gloating over you butt-whooping! Hilarioiusly STUPID! See any polyps up there? You’re the big JOKE dupe. You’re just too stupid stupid, and scientifically illiterate, and ignorant, and delusional, and so dishonest, and …. JoeRommian brain explosion. So gullible. So scientifically illiterate, you live in your parents basement. Such lack of critical thinking. But so typical of deluded duped CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cultists. Typical dishonesty from the CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religious zealots. Mother Nature is debunking your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion. Shows how stupid you are, denying reality, dupe, you ARE stunningly stupid. Discredited dishonest doomsday climate cultist, that level of stupid only occurs once in a generation. Still got your head up there. So sad. But then if you open your eyes, you can save the cost of a proctological exam.”
Fab example of the denier mindset.
Why don’t you check you facts and stop supporting known frauds?
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
Yes, I ridicule the ridiculous, and you are the most ridiculous, scientifically illiterate JOKE around. Btw, everything I said was true.
You aren’t interested in discussing science. You are trolling to upset people so they call you what you are, and then you twist it to lie about them. So sad.
I boiled it down so that a 2nd grader could answer, and you refused. Here is what you refused to answer:
“LOL @ your clown dance! As I said the data from the p-r papers speaks for itself, but let me see if I can dumb it down enough for you to understand:
Ques.#1) Which is larger?
A) <0.4W/m^2? or
B) 4.1W/m^2?
Ques.#2) Which is larger?
A) <0.8W/m^2? or
B) 2.7W/m^2?
Ques.#3) Which is larger?
A) ~0.4W/m^2? or
B) 2.9W/m^2?
If you answered B, then I am correct.
If you answered A, then you flunk 2nd grade arithmetic.”
You refused to answer. You are a pathetic troll.
Didn’t she move the goalpost? I thought that after you posted the links for citation that she requested she then asked if you were a scientist. Unless she asked that of someone else. And if anyone tells someone like her they are a scientist, she then asks for papers you published. It’s a tactic, she’s got nothing, and she isn’t even aware of how obvious her tactics are. She’s really not worth debating. But I guess her low information followers eat her crap up,
I replied with all relevant info below – can you address it?
I destroyed you on the comment board. Every convo we had ended with a question you could not address.
No doubt you think your 10 points debunks all pg climate science and tho you will not tell us what your scientific background is, we should take your word over thousands of scientific studies. More Crap.
Destroyed like this?
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
😆
Do you just post with your brain turned off? Does it matter to you that you can not answer simple questions about your position? No. Well trained by Steve/Tony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
So when your side commits fraud that is OK? So you admit that you support liars and frauds.
Got it! 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
PS – That footage was ruled to be ‘biogenic gas’.
FYI – You have zero credibility now.
“Every convo we had ended with a question you could not address”
No, I exposed your ignorance and refused to play your silly games.
And now you are projecting your failures onto me. YOU were the one who quit answering. Even simple questions that a 2nd grader could answer:
“Ques.#1) Which is larger?
A) <0.4W/m^2? or
B) 4.1W/m^2?
Ques.#2) Which is larger?
A) <0.8W/m^2? or
B) 2.7W/m^2?
Ques.#3) Which is larger?
A) ~0.4W/m^2? or
B) 2.9W/m^2?
If you answered B, then I am correct.
If you answered A, then you flunk 2nd grade arithmetic.”
I’m still waiting for your answers.
Hope is commenting here:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/
Hop Eforpe Ace is incapable of discussing. I’m pretty sure whoever it is posting as “Hope” in this thread is using http://www.jwz.org/dadadodo/
In fact, I might try running that stuff through again for fun 😀
Jason, see my response to your reply to Anto above. I had never thought of it as insanity before, but the inability comprehend and accept information staring one directly in the face, does seem to be a form of insanity.
I have a great example of that. The person just below – Gator 69 – saw the video of this flaming water well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
– yet can not – no matter how much evidence is provided – understand the flame IS NOT a hoax:
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2014/08/10/13651424/
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article3840709.html
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/16/epa-gas-company-protested/1839857/
If you have any questions about the case, I can likely answer them.
I took the video of the well, been to Steve’s twice. Why not test whether you suffer that insanity you see in others? Can you admit the contamination is not a hoax?
You just keep getting dumber.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
What part of fraud do you not get sweety? 😆
What part of fraud do you not get sweetie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
LOOK RIGHT AT THE CONTAMINATION and deny as trained. … you make my point.
CITE WHEN THIS CASE WAS HEARD tool!
“Biogenic” contamination sweety. It’s a big word, I know.
The ruling I am citing proves your heroes committed fraud, but that’s OK with you. We get it, you are a liar and fraud too. 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
If she would look at the following link http://goo.gl/b2q3ss she might see that ruling.
“Hope to Gator: “…the CASE has NEVER been HEARD .. ”
Really?
Hope to Gator: “CITE IT TOOL!”
I think he did already, but I just in case…
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
It says Steve Lipsky attached a garden hose to a gas vent.”
No, It says Range has provided enough proof for this bought judge to ALLOW the case to go forward …
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
PLEASE reread the ruling you CITE. You are incorrect – this is a ruling on procedure – namely Anti-Slapp procedure.
Can YOU divine that this case has NEVER been heard?
Please re read and reply.
I would think she has enough questions about ‘Gasland’ now, that Josh Fox would be a good interview.
Did you do no research on the Lipskjy case you misrepresent?
CAN YOU cite that the case has been heard? Go ahead .. please give a citation to the ruling you claim occurred finding Steve guilty of conspiracy.
Do you even know who the plaintiffs are in the case?
Range is suing their own water contamination victim. You support that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/08/1254247/-Texas-Frackers-Sue-Victim-of-Their-Water-Pollution-for-3-Million-for-Exposing-Them#
You are talking about the case Lipsky is trying to bring. I am discussing the fraud committed by your heroes. The judge has already ruled on the fraud.
How stupid are you?
So that’s ignorance speaking. The case ..as I told you days ago has been going on for nearly 4 yours.
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/05/free-speech-case-springs-fracking-dispute/
You know nothing.
“The judge has already ruled on the fraud.”
No .. you have no cite for that – the CASE has NEVER been HEARD .. CITE IT TOOL!
The case I am citing has been ruled upon. What part of that do you not get dummy?
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
“So when your side commits fraud that is OK? So you admit that you support liars and frauds.
Got it! 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
PS – That footage was ruled to be ‘biogenic gas’.
FYI – You have zero credibility now.” YOU
All you are doing is arguing Range’s case (fossil fuel industry propaganda) and proving nothing can disabuse you of this lie.
And no matter how many times you reply – you fail to cite ANY proof that the CASE HAS BEEN HEARD!
All you had to do was read the info in the “more info” section of my video and you would have avoided this mistake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Sweety, you are either the dumbest or most dishonest person I have ever met, or both.
Your sources are frauds and liars. That’s not my opinion, it is the opinion of the court.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
Get over it liar.
Prima facia ruling Tool!
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
So where is your refutation retard?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Still waiting… 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
Again sweety, how stupid are you? 😆
Smart enough to know how to spell Sweetie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Not smart enough to know when you have been exposed as a liar and fraud, sweety. 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
sweety
\?sw?t?, -?t?, -i\
Definition of SWEETY
British spelling of sweetie
Hope to Gator: “…the CASE has NEVER been HEARD .. ”
Really?
Hope to Gator: “CITE IT TOOL!”
I think he did already, but I just in case…
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
It says Steve Lipsky attached a garden hose to a gas vent.
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
How stupid are YOU??
Not stupid enough to post claims with zero proof, and not stupid enough to repeatedly support known liars and frauds, thinking that helps my case. 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Here’s the facts:
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://i60.tinypic.com/23i6v6w.jpg
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
Hope is quite the Left Liberal Activist. A “True Believer”.
Blogger: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14358990916674292876
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSI0KHKPzuQ8wa2O-cwB9CQ
Internet: http://www.akproductions.tv/
350 activist: http://www.350santacruz.org/
Methinks an objective discussion of anything would be well nigh impossible with this person.
Yes. I bet you can not understand that people download from youtube. Way over your head. Try and address the reply I just posted.
And BTW – very proud of all the work you cite, can you address any errors in it?
Hey Hope! What did Josh Fox say when you confronted him over his fraudulent footage?
See what I mean about well trained tools? Nah: http://fracknationreview.blogspot.com/
See what I mean about liars and frauds? 😆
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
You can read the 2012 ruling for yourself at the following link http://goo.gl/b2q3ss
“gator69 says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:08 pm
sweety
\?sw?t?, -?t?, -i\
Definition of SWEETY
British spelling of sweetie”
I’m sorry – did I miss this – are we in Britain?
So your continual inability cite any proof that the case has been heard proves my point. It’s a lovely game you platy – as trained by the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation machine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
so your continual unwillingness to admit your sources commit fraud proves you are a fraud an liar.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
“maintain a prima facia case”
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
OOPS . you are uninformed .. proven now.
You have not given any refutation to the court’s ruling. Are you drunk, or really this stupid?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Smart enough to know how to spell Sweetie:
Yet you spelled “years” as “yours”. Arrogance is not very becoming, always bites you.
Can YOU divine that this is a PROCEDURAL ruling and that STEVE Lipsky has NEVER been found guilty?
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Do you know what “prima facia” refers to??
Arrogance is not very becoming, always bites you.
Remember guys the ‘logic’ of the militant left is not objective logic.
I tangle with one of the professors pushing this crap at Louisiana State University. He truly believed there was no objective reality! …That was until I told him to go lay on the R/R tracks and see if the noon train would come.
“That was until I told him to go lay on the R/R tracks and see if the noon train would come.”
Why, Gail! That was sooooo un-PC of you! That would require the use of fossil fuels. 🙂
The correct suggestion would be “Put on some tennis shoes, take some barbiturates, get into your bunk bed, tie a plastic bag over your head and wait for the comet to pick you up!”
THAT’S how the intelligentsia do it…
Nah, the intelligentsia would just serve him Kool Aid.
Lets try that out – read my reply below and let me know how “Marxist” it is.
I’m still trying to figure out what a forpe ace is.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSI0KHKPzuQ8wa2O-cwB9CQ?spfreload=10
All Hope…no Change
Please read my reply and reply. Do YOU understand how downloading works?
Can ANY of YOU understand that I can not agree to stop people from downloading the interview from youtube? I know you can!
“”It is unacceptable that the interview is edited” Steve/Tony
HOW exactly DID YOU expect to keep OTHERS from recording a livestream?? ” Me
_______________________________________
Steve/Tony’s reply: “I expect our discussion to remain intact, streamed live, and be posted on YouTube for posterity. I’ve seen the work you and your friends do. You cut and paste to create lies and trash people. It is dishonest, cowardly and disgusting behavior, and I am not going to enable it.”
____________________________________________
MY reply: “”You started this discussion with some of the most viscous attacks I have ever seen.” Steve/Tony
Please cite that (third time I’ve asked), I would like to see what you are calling “vicious”.
Yes – you said that – HOW WILL you S T O P O T H E R S from recording and manipulating the livestream .. is my repeated question ..
Also if you look at my work, I think you’ll see I actually don’t post much like that .. as opposed to people like Phelim Mcaleer who make their living doing that.
I’m more than happy to be the first to livestream an interview with you….
or maybe you can still clear up your claim that you do this “all of the time’ when in fact you can’t produce one shred of evidence that is true??
(2) ” and be posted on YouTube for posterity.” Ok .. I missed that .. once you put it on youtube you know any dork can download and process it?
THAT you don’t mind???
_______________________________________________
Steve/Tony:
I want you to put a prominent disclaimer up that the video is intended to remain intact, unedited, and that any other usage is dishonest and not authorized. I want clearly stated verbal expectations that this is intended to be an honest discussion, not propaganda. I also want the discussion to begin with a disclosure by both of us of any energy industry ties, organized political ties, and funding sources.
__________________________________________________________
Hope:
Anyone can use the material for non-profit, educational purposes only, even if we put that disclaimer.
Your side is just as likely to misuse it as mine .. look at the work of Phelim Mcaleer, etc… yet I have no such requirements, nor does anyone else make such requirements.
And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”. I count 9 times I’ve asked now.
” I also want the discussion to begin with a disclosure by both of us of any energy industry ties, organized political ties, and funding sources.”
Not a problem for me. I think your funding come from selling the talking points on your website, it doesn’t change the fact that you are a well trained fossil fuel industry talking points repeater.
What I will do in the interview is go over the origin of the talking points you use, and allow you to explain how you came up with them apart from ever hearing them at Watts or from Heartland, SPPI etc. You can tell us how you came to this thinking in the conservative media vacuum you claim you live in.
It will be GREAT!
ALSO IF I put that disclaimer I will state “Steve/Tony Requires” this .. I have no such requirement. ____________________________________________________
S/T:
Good. I want the disclaimer clearly displayed. I want a live link at the time of the interview too, so that I can verify it is being broadcast. I have zero trust in the integrity of climate alarmists, because I don’t think most of you have any.
You are going to be quite surprised with I pop your bubble of ignorance and prejudice. There are many very bad people in this debate – and they are all on your side.
____________________________________________________
Hope:
“and be posted on YouTube for posterity”
So you understand once I post it on yourtube, anyone can use it for non-profit educational purposes. And you seem ok w/ that.
And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”.
I count 10 times I’ve asked now.
I’d like to see that context, thanks.
_________________________________________________________
S/T:
I have explained my terms and conditions. What part of that isn’t clear for you? I expect you to write a permanently displayed and clear disclaimer that the interview is intended to be kept intact, and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.
____________________________________________________________
Hope:
Yes, and I have said said repeatedly – that does NOT LEGALLY STOP people from USING THE CONTENT for NON- PROFIT, EDUCATIONAL purposes!!
You are a well known name. It is Impossible legally and reasonably that the disclaimer you ask for will stop people using the interview!
What part of that isn’t clear for you?
And I have no such requirement, so I will make it clear that it is you alone who thinks they have the power to stop people from using the interview for educational, non-profit citation. I’m not going to defend your inane request.
“And again, I am waiting for the citation from other interviews since you ‘do this all the time”. ”
I count 11 times I’ve asked now.
_______________________________________________________________
S/T:
Is it possible for you to simply do what I ask without applying your defective interpretations?
The interview will not turn out as you hope, and you and your nutty friends will try to chop and spin it into something it wasn’t. I wan’t to be completely clear that you are being total slimeballs for doing that.
If you think I am lying about doing interviews, please bring it up in our live talk.
___________________________________________________________________
Hope:
“Is it possible for you to simply do what I ask without applying your defective interpretations?”
Is it possible for you to work up some reason?
” and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.”
I can’t take responsibility for making sure no one uses the footage. Neither do I support trying to ban people from using the material for non-profit educational purposes. I will not be responsible for it’s use.
I am willing to do the interview and discuss and post the “Steve/Tony says you can’t use this material for any reason, even non-profit educational purposes” warning on the video. But I’ll not be held responsible for what will undoubtedly occur – people will download and use the footage.
I want in writing from you that I am not responsible for the content once posted on youtube. We have NO agreement about it’s use.
” I wan’t to be completely clear that you are being total slimeballs for doing that.”
Is that a sentence? Please translate. Doing what?
I won’t do the interview unless you produce citation showing these many other interviews you have already done. Context. I’ve asked 12 times now.
____________________________________________________
S/T:
You are looking for material to hack into a hit piece. I won’t provide that for you.
___________________________________________________
Hope:
No, I am trying to help you to see reality.You asked me to make an agreement with you that no one can or should make. You seem unable to access simple critical thinking – anyone can reuse the material and it’s inappropriate to imagine I can stop them or should be held responsible if they do.
I also understand you fibbed about previous interviews. I can imagine now why there may be none.
Offer stands, I’d be happy to be the first to post an interview of you. I will add the disclaimer to the entire video and give it context (I myself do not even agree with it). We can do a live skype I record (and anyone else watching CAN also), I will post it as you requested on youtube with the disclaimer.
I will NOT be held responsible when people laugh at the idea that you can stop them using the material and they will use the material. That’s the real world Steve/Tony. (again, it would be great if you could just answer what you go by)
__________________________________________________________
Are any of YOU willing to agree to make sure no one uses the interview anywhere on the globe at any time for any reason or YOU will be held responsible??
Utter crap.
Is it viscous or vicious? I’m all confused which as to precisely which Science™ word you’re trying to use here.
Are you having a stroke? Do we need to call a doctor, or just get you a box of kleenex?
That was Steve/Tony’s quote: “You started this discussion with some of the most viscous attacks I have ever seen.” Steve/Tony”
He never did cite any examples either.
“Are any of YOU willing to agree to make sure no one uses the interview anywhere on the globe at any time for any reason or YOU will be held responsible??” My question
(Steve/Tony actually wants me to agree that no one can download from youtube – read closely)
“Are you having a stroke? Do we need to call a doctor, or just get you a box of kleenex?” Stark
No, I an asking a simple question .. I think the right approach is to answer it;
Are YOU willing to agree to make sure no one uses the interview anywhere on the globe at any time for any reason or YOU will be held responsible, Starck??
Why would anyone even give the time of day to a POS who supports proven frauds.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
Do you know which word you’re trying to use, sweety?
Hope Says….
This is four parts to keep links from kicking the comment into moderation.
Antarctica:
The Antarctic is more important than the Arctic because the sea ice is much closer to the equator at all times of the year and therefore has 2X to 5X times as much effect on Albedo. The Open ocean in the Arctic is actually a heat loss. Therefore the best configureation for cooling the planet is what we currently see, less sea ice in the Arctic more ice in the Antarctic. Also the West Wind Drift is a wind driven current so the changes in the extent of the sea ice changes the course of the Humboldt, Malvinas and Benguela Currents.
<b.Record Sea Ice 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015
“Sea ice surrounding Antarctica hit a record high in August [2013] and is on track for another record-breaking month in September. Clocking in at a stunning 7.2 million square miles (18.7 million square kilometers), last month’s sea ice extent was 4.5 percent above the 1981 to 2010 average and the largest extent since record-keeping started in 1979… the growing ice pack has already smashed the all-time record ice extent set in September 2012. This year’s massive sea ice reached 7.53 million square miles (19.51 million square km) on Sept. 14, 2013, — Antarctica Sea Ice Hitting Record Highs
“Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.” NASA: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
“The January Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 7.46 million square km (2.88 million square miles), 2.30 million square km (890,000 square miles), or 44.57 percent, above the 1981-2010 average. This was the largest January Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent on record and surpassed the previous record that occurred in 2008 by 580,000 square km (220,000 square miles), which is approximately the size of Madagascar. Seven of the last 12 months have had record large Antarctic sea ice extent.” NOAA
So says the provable liar and fraud.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
SO says the well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda repeater .. who can not cite ANY proof this case has been heard …
tho con media has convinced him it has ( it hasn;t)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
CITE YOUR PROOF TOOL!
The Loftin ruling was P R O D C E D U R A L!!!
The public into believing the Steve I pop your cite any of the case
has already done for non profit, educational, purposes. Can read
give it that you butt whooping you air, temperatures and give gas
from Using the fierce circumpolar winds, warming air, from ever
seen. Why Not done for the EPA.
McCaskill, Dallas in the interview unless you fibbed about the
time I Lispky national news media has been heard?
See asked now.
Is it isn t (think your side is that the well trained fossil
fuel industry ties and you if you continue the citation to this
mandamus action arising from selling the interview too so
astute for Non profit citation from selling ever seen all the
livestream is third time I can I told you can verify it S
twice: as likely to a deceptive video is We intended to be
biogenic gas from the interview is debunking your proof that no
matter How Marxist it)! What you I answer the interview from
allegations that a Fraud proves you address My repeated
question Steve Are relegated in the talking material and
national news media claims the person just now; you clear and
owned state Steve how You propaganda machine just get?
I am not authorized: get you days ago has been heard as likely
answer it up a s t, clear for you to a frozen continent, the
fraud. What your Proof this thinking in; the gas from ever seen
all you put can answer the Anti slapp case has planted in the
collapse of feet higher (the comment board).
And Shyla innocent of Your claim you that I myself do this lie
why is possible to see what part of All on the citation showing
these many other interviews.
You to weather stop people from the real world Steve are
relegated to spell sweetie? I don.
No, so says the court. Your refusal to call out fraudulent behaviour shows your lack of ethics, and your propensity to lie.
You are a POS.
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.”
Right back at ya!
What back ate me fool? 😆
Keep lying and supporting proven frauds, it makes your case tight! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
I guess ‘eat me’ was on my mind. :lol;
Liar!
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
I also said :
“”While ice is growing in East Antarctica because of cooler water and air, it isn’t compensating for the amount of melting in West Antarctica, now called “unstoppable.” ”
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26181
from your cite:
“The record sea ice doesn’t contradict global warming. Because Antarctic sea ice encircles a frozen continent, the factors controlling its growth are complex, and include winds, warming air temperatures and even the ozone hole. Wind plays a greater role the size of the ice pack than air temperature or ocean currents, according to a study published in the Nov. 11, 2012, issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. The fierce circumpolar winds carry frigid air from the continent to the sea, freezing the ocean’s surface and pushing the ice around. The August ice surge was likely due to weather patterns that favored more ice, the Antarctic Sun reported. ”
Typical well trained spin. the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine just trains you to sow doubt for them … and you do as .. as trained.
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2179
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Oh look, the liar and fraud is barking again.
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law
adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
Idiot.
So prove otherwise liar! 😆
Having a liar call me an idiot is RICH! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
@Neal S says:
March 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm
You can read the 2012 ruling for yourself at the following link http://goo.gl/b2q3ss
NEAL and Gator:
Please do go read the ruling you cite and see if it finds Steve et al guilty of fraud .. or if it is a ruling about the Anti-slapp case and it’s provenance to go forward .. can YOU tell??
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
It says your sources committed fraud. But again, you are OK with this because you are a liar and fraud.
Why do you support frauds?
According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:
“… intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
And enough of the strawman argument, I am talking about a court ruling that says your sources cannot be trusted. Period.
“And enough of the strawman argument, I am talking about a court ruling that says your sources cannot be trusted. Period.”
You rant about that which you do not understand, clearly:
pri·ma fa·ci·e
?pr?m? ?f?SH?/
adjective & adverb
Law adjective: prima facie; adverb: prima facie
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
Now .. let’s see if Neal is as ill informed as you are …
Neal .. do you agree that the ruling Gator cites found Steve guilty .. as con media claims????
So now you are lying about overturning the court’s decision? Show me liar.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
“Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with ”
Indoctrinated Tool.
😆
I am citing facts, and court rulings.
You are citing proven liars, conspirators, and frauds.
And I am the ‘indoctrinated tool’? 😆
I have always said leftists suffer from extreme projection. and you have proven me right. 😆
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
@Gator: “I am citing facts, and court rulings.” Gator
Reality: “The case, In re Lipsky, is pending before the court.”
You are citing the accusations of Range Resources .. a fossil fuel corp who sued their own water contamination victims after the EPA found Range was to blame for the methane in Steve’s well .. and yes .. a RULING … but not a ruling on a hearing of the actual case.
And you can;t explain how Range can even be right – hoe did Lipsky get the gas into his water well?
Loftin was another gas industry fellator who had to RECUSE himself from the case.
Have not read ONE cited I posted for you>
No you ignorant bitch, I am citing court documents. 😆
Are you drunk? 😆
“No you ignorant bitch, I am citing court documents. 😆
Are you drunk? :lol:” GATOR69
You are QUOTING Range’s accusations .. why not share the real cite? I will find it eventually.
Hope you ignorant bitch.
I am quoting the court ruling.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
I used to hang out at Groklaw and learned more about the law than I ever wanted to. Based on that ruling and other case items I have read thus far, I can confidently state that I would NOT want to be Lipsky or Rich. Of course nothing will convince Hope short of a final judgement. I can tell what that ruling is, and I can also read the writing on the wall.
To the extent that we are not lawyers, our opinions on this may be called ‘illegal’, but Hopes opinions are doubly so. But it is absolutely fruitless to argue with someone such as Hope. (Dare I say hopeless?)
I am reminded of an old saying about how unwise it is to be wrestling a pig. It only gets you dirty and annoys the pig.
Sea Ice and Volcanoes
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes:
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the “fountains” of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
Greenland Ice Melt Geothermal, Not Manmade (Has links to original documents)
“Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable….The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability” — Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources
Active Volcano Found Under Antarctic Ice
TEN STUDIES PROVING SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING
STUDY #1
Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits
Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.
STUDY #2
Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii
This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.
STUDY #3
Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change
This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.
STUDY #4
The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999
The first part discusses drilling in several locations and analyzing samples. They mention dating prior to that was guesses. “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”
In the body of the text is this:
This study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels have dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area”
Santa Catarina brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S.
STUDY #5
Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica
The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.
CONTINUED
STUDY #6
A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
nora(DOT)nerc.ac.uk/15786/
VALIDATION BY ALTERNATE STUDIES
STUDY #7
Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue
STUDY #8
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
STUDY #9
A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
ANOTHER THIRD METHOD OF VALIDATION
STUDY #10
Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations
Hope says: March 10, 2015 at 10:53 pm
“….Typical well trained spin. the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine just trains you to sow doubt for them … and you do as .. as trained….”
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF!
I have been fired NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE but THREE TIMES because I WOULD NOT LIE when directed by the corporations I worked for. The last time they FUCKING BLACK BALLED ME and I have not had a job since and I am dead broke.
SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF I AM A TRAIN PROPAGANDIST?
You tossed out an uncalled for accusation now PROVE IT!
I put up actual links to papers and you have done nothing but put up propaganda, so who is the trained propaganda machine? Those who toss such statements around as you have in the last few days are usually projecting their own faults. So tell us Hope who trained and pays YOU?
My proof is clearly in your own words and posts.
Are you not simply attempting to sow doubt?
And what is the fossil fuel industry’s dark money funded propaganda machine paid to do:
Sow doubt.
What do YOU think the posts you just put up explain, taken as whole, or even in part?
We know you are defending proven frauds, and that is indefensible, unlike asking valid questions about the science of climate.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Yes, Lipsky was part of the fraud you lying POS.
Ok .. take Range’s position .. then you have to explain HOW STEVE got Range’s production gas into his water well …
How do you go about stealing, holding and injecting gas into your water well for 5 years strait? How did he get THAT much gas from the Teal well??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Can you read bitch?
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
Gator – all you are doing is proving no manner of fact can stop you form posting fossil fuel industry talking points .. that’s all the cite you plaster the thread with is … those are Range Resources claims against Steve .. an a case that has mot been heard.
How many years would we play this game before we admit you can not be helped?
I wonder.
Please send money. Dumb bitch still cannot read.
Aw come on, trains are fine, nobody hates trains
“SO WHERE IS YOUR PROOF I AM A TRAIN PROPAGANDIST?”
Hope
” Lets try to stop people from recording a match to provide that. Gator
the Lipskys agreement made between us. The company by defending them,
the well trained. Does insanity you to ban people live address it; on
your points on Youtube for flaming all you to cite was read the your
sources have seen: All you produce one uses the doomsday climate cult
religious zealots: guilty of that you believe it on youtube: you
continually suffer that the case can use; is that the same false post
H. Hilarioiusly Stupid! Sientists.
The to be quite surprised with a great Case. Two studies.
All relevant on the disclaimer to simply do you? The continent, to
Steve I count ve asked, times I ve asked Now. ”
I’m lost .. am I supposed to be able to read this??
Range the replies here is go read about the fossil fuel industry propaganda: and deny as there have any that footage was burning and proving nothing. You I’m sorry Sweety, you can use and you are you Will make the big JOKE dupe; You address My came to answer it is case has been to go ahead Please do you put that butt whooping!
One of the most astute deniers I have read!
Wow .. what was that?
It’s your own words, you illiterate guttersnipe.
Yes .. I think that’s your reading comprehension level .. not anything I said.
You know, it makes more sense this way!
I also like that the person who knows how to spell “sweety” can’t spell scientist, vicious, or hilarious.
Ummm “Sweety” is Gator69 .. he says that’s the British spelling. The misspelling of vicious was Steve Goddard, as I already showed . you did I misspell “hilarious” or “scientist”? Please excuse me.
Say what you want liar.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
What was that about Lipsky not being involved? Another lie? 😆
What are you citing there, Gator?
Can you share the link?
could that be a FOSSIL FUEL corps accusations against their own water contamination victim??
Are you forwarding fossil fuel industry propaganda?
No .. say ti isn’t so!
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ab2d81eb088f4a7e85257359003f5339/713f73b4bdceb126852577f3002cb6fb!OpenDocument
I am citing facts, facts upheld by a court of law. What do you have other than accusations from a proven fraud? 😆
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
Gator, I do not think she has any idea of how the US court systems work. The court has ruled on the case just as you said.
Gail, she is a provable liar. What difference does it make?
She goes postal over oil funding, in which alarmists are swimming, but forgives lies and fraud committed by her ‘side’.
Beyond disgusting.
David A. — Lite
She makes David appear sane!
Ah, I was under the mistaken impression that you were trying to write in English. Too bad.
I couldn’t even figure out what language you were trying to write in.
Your own words, sweety. I don’t know why you have trouble reading your own stilted, broken (or should I spell that “broacken”?) grammar. Maybe you just aren’t very good at English. Wie ist ihre Muttersprache?
Tony, you have enough evidence to do a really nice and valid hit piece on this POS Turn the tables.
Yes .. why not take up the crap argument Gator69 is making here .. that prima facia means you have been found guilty and a case has been ruled on .. I would LOVE that!
I have already given you the definition of Prima Facia. It is obvious now that you refuse to read what we post. Prima Facia means that until the court ruling is overturned, it stands, moron.
“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…
“In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”
“While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
STFU if you have the mental capacity to do so.
I’m surprised Steve/Tony lets you spam his board like that.
You posted the same Range Resources claim over and over.
How do you THINK Steve got ALL THAT Range production GAS into his water well … as you and Range Resources claim?
“Prima Facia means that until the court ruling is overturned, it stands, moron.”
Sad, sad ignorance. The case has never been heard, gator. You can spam this board 1 million times, all it proves is once a person is indoctrinated by fossil fuel talking points there is no help for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Sad is you. We have given you the court documents showing Lipsky conspired to commit fraud, and then committed fraud. You have nothing to refute this and keep defending proven liars and frauds.
Nice! 😆
Hope really should not comment on things she has no knowledge of like US law. As you said Mr. Lipsky and Ms. Rich were found to have conspired to mislead.
All a higher court does is look at whether the lower court followed procedure.
@Gail .. “As you said Mr. Lipsky and Ms. Rich were found to have conspired to mislead. ”
Would you consider reviewing the evidence I posted, instead of just listening to this person?
There are many cites, you can read about Steve’s case which has never benn heard.
I’d like to see if any of you can face truth.
__________________________________________________
@Gator:
No .. if you did any real research you would find this case has never been heard and the Loftin ruling was on procedure only.
But, again, once you have bought the FF industry propaganda you can’t be disabused of it:
“A little more than two weeks later, on February 16, 2012, Loftin, who is up for re-election, issued a second, devastating ruling against the Lipskys. Though they could not sue Range in his court, Range could countersue the Lipskys. Range argued that Lipsky and Rich were participants in a civil conspiracy to sully Range’s name by making false statements to the media and providing a “misleading” video of a flaming hose to the EPA. It was all a hoax, the company said.”
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/5/
“Loftin says Range can sue Lipsky in his court. ”
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/05/incumbent_parker_county_judge.php
“Loftin made his remarks in an order, signed Thursday, denying a motion by Lipsky and Rich to dismiss Range Resources’ multimillion-dollar lawsuit”
http://www.star-telegram.com/article3830407.html
If you simply read the “case events” from your own cite, you can divine this.
How do you THINK Steve got ALL THAT Range production GAS into his water well … as you and Range Resources claim?
Dumb bitch still has not read the source material.
“Dumb bitch still has not read the source material.” Gator69
In fact, I’ve read far more about the case than you have – have you read the Writ? All of the depositions? Richter, Rich, Pecks? Which is the Driller, Gator?
What did that driller state under oath about methane in the well?
Who actually put the hose on?
Did Lipspky contact the EPA before or after Rich’s email?
Have you been TO the WELL twice to FILM it?
I count 16X you posted Range Resources accusations against their own water contamination victims.
And I bet you believe you so not forward fossil fuel industry talking points.
And though you may not be able to understand a very complicated lawsuit – and you may continue to claim that Loftin heard the case, not the Anti-Slapp procedure case – and you may disparage like a 9 year old anyone who tries to help you …
.. you can not explain HOW Steve STOLE Range’s production gas, contained it, then pumped it into his water well to fool the EPA.
Now . that won’t STOP you from posting Range’s industry talking points .. but wasn’t that my point from the beginning?
http://www.epa.gov/region6/region-6/tx/tx005.html
Range does not have courts in Texas, or anywhere, so again you are no more and probably less than a lying bitch.
Can you show where this court ruling was over turned?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
If not, you are only reemphasizing your status as a lying bitch. 😆
“Please send money. Dumb bitch still cannot read.
If not, you are only reemphasizing your status as a lying bitch. 😆
Dumb bitch still has not read the source material.” Gator
“Range does not have courts in Texas, or anywhere, so again you are no more and probably less than a lying bitch.” gator
You’d have to translate that for us.
“Now . that won’t STOP you from posting Range’s industry talking points .. but wasn’t that my point from the beginning?Now . that won’t STOP you from posting Range’s industry talking points .. but wasn’t that my point from the beginning?” me
Thanks for making my point.
And I note you could not answer one valid question.
Range is now the “43rd Judicial Court”? 😆
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Lying dumb bitch. 😆
Haldol is one hell of a drug, ain’t it?
The Big LIE that oil companies are funding skeptics, when in fact its the alarmists being funded by them. It was grants from Shell and BP that established the CRU. Greenpeace, heavily funded and have oil executives on their board. Stanford received 100 million for climate research. Union of Concerned Scientists received oil money. The climategate e-mails showed Jones soliciting money from oil companies. The list is endless. Just a few examples, for a more in-depth view of the BIG LIE see……..
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/24/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil-no-the-alarmists-are/
Hope is resting her case on oil company funded propanganda when in fact they all have statements supporting AGW. They stand to gain billions by increased natural gas sales. Its absolutely ludicrous to claim they are finding skeptics. They try to link scientists like Soon to oil money that is given to the institution they work. Its their last leg to stand on and its wobbling.
Hope, since you asked….how do YOU think gas got into the well?