Sides in fracking debate try to discredit claims

Only a few hours after media reports began popping up on a Cornell University study about greenhouse emissions related to hydraulic fracturing, an industry trade group released a 2,000-word rebuttal meant to debunk it.

The Cornell study -- which contends methane seeping from wells during drilling and hydrofracking has a greater 20-year impact on global warming than coal emissions -- is the latest in a long line of reports heralded by one side of the issue and ripped by the other. It's a larger symbol of the three-year-old debate: The two sides of the argument don't agree on much of anything and move quickly to discredit the other's claims, leaving some wondering where to find the facts on the hotly contested issue.

"I'm struck by the fact that people on both sides of the debate hear, but don't listen," said Don Siegel, a hydrology professor at Syracuse University and a shale gas proponent. "The discourse has gotten far too polarized to the point where people just refuse to compromise or even consider the other side of the argument."

(Click to read then entire article)


Blogger Template by Blogcrowds

Copyright 2006| Blogger Templates by GeckoandFly modified and converted to Blogger Beta by Blogcrowds.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.