Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gasland Debunked

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by billyjack
reply to post by newcovenant
 


If you want the truth about the environmenalist agenda and who these people are you should read "Apocalypse Not" by Dixie Lee Ray. There you will find that most of the radical environmentalists were communist/marxists that joined the movement after the fall of the Soviet Union to have a platform to continue their work. Mark Whittle stated it best when he decsribed their ilk as oikiphobics. I know it is hard for disciples of the Secular Socialist to question their faith, but the Dixie Lee Ray book really shows the players and where they came from.



Being a communist Marxist is not enough to accuse someone of misdeed or bad intention. That is just a label and does not always translate to objectionable actions. I do not want to know who they are...these environmentalists. And Mark Whittle's additional name calling does not explain their agenda to me either.
I would like to know what you or even Dixie Lee Ray think they are up to. What is the end goal?

What wicked agenda can they possibly have? Outside of saving the natural resources and beauty of the planet which incidentally is not for aesthetics alone - this conservation of the marshlands and rainforest (for example), plays a vital role in survival of the species. Without it we are toast.

That is a pretty good agenda if you ask me.
Survival of the species...human.




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I'm a little late to this party, but I watched Gasland for the first time yesterday and was appalled.

I no longer read or trust any MSM, including the WSJ -I am a former subscriber and trader.

Fracking uses almost 600 toxic chemicals in its process, most of which remain in the ground. While it is true that the drilling occurs much deeper than wells sit, the chemicals have to make their way down to those levels to get there. Further, we cannot discount the "produced water" which sits on top of the land and seeps back in to the ground water or evaporates into the air.

Those who refuse to be open to the possibility that they don't know all of the facts and that some of the facts may be different than their beliefs have no business in the argument.





new topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join