There is a subsection of the science community that loves Rachel Maddow; she is literate and she has the right politics. But most of science is doing a facepalm because her slippery slope reasoning about 'fracking', if applied to any field of science, would call a halt to research all over the country.
Why? Because the needs of society can never, ever triumph over safety issues if there is any chance at all anything may go wrong. Media pundits like Rachel Maddow are why we have global warming, not energy companies. In the 1980s, nuclear power was run out of the country by progressive anti-science kooks. In that 30 years since, American science and technology could have progressed nuclear power a lot, but instead it was dead in the water and countries like France took the lead. When it came time for Kyoto efforts to curb global warming, France happily agreed to a 1990 date; it was before they had brought more nuclear plants online and the USA had to add coal plants in all that time. France got to save the environment and crippled an economic competitor.
Fracking hysteria, promoted by left-wing stereotypes about how scientists are either too stupid or too uncaring to know what is really happening, is that same sort of thing. Natural gas was adored by activists until it actually came into use; now they claim it causes cancer. Well, they claim everything causes cancer so that doesn't mean much. We would all have cancer if everything activists claim causes cancer actually caused cancer.
Maddow, predictably, shows that tired footage of a guy setting his tap water on fire. The inference was that it was caused by fracking and no methane ever got into a well any other way. It was a little silly, actual science debunked it, but that's the way public relations works, and Maddow is clearly doing some anti-science PR for the audience most inclined to want to believe it.
If getting cancer or flaming water was not enough to convince anyone, she invoked earthquakes. There are plenty of earthquakes in California. How long before she contends those are caused by natural gas in Texas? If you really want earthquakes, try geothermal power. Yet today that is adored by anti-science activists and will remain so - until it gets used.
Fans call her scientifically minded. Only if it matches her politics (and theirs).
Alex Berezow at RealClearScience has the takedown and her video.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Part I: Bee Deaths Mystery Solved? Neonicotinoids (Neonics) May Actually Help Bee Health
- On integrating out short-distance physics
- Chronic Pain Isn't All In The Brain
- Is The Micropower Revolution Here?
- Part II: Bee Deaths And CCD - Flawed Chensheng Lu Harvard Studies Endanger Bees
- Violence, Sex And Taboo: The Original Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales Back In Print
- Big Data Could Be A Big Problem For Workplace Discrimination Law
- "> I have thanked the four main contributors But I count five names... Anyway, have you seen this..."
- "So there is a 1-3 ppb in pollen and nectar. But what about the honey? The water is evaporated from..."
- "Could be, but we have continuity of the fossil record with later life forms evolving from earlier..."
- "I think they have all been corrected by now - in the next blog post there is a link to the updated..."
- "There are fews other typographical details (as the title 3.2 vs 3.3 : 5-sigma vs 5$\sigma$)...I..."
- Study reveals significantly increased risk of stillbirth in males
- Moderate coffee consumption may lower the risk of Alzheimer's disease by up to 20 percent
- New research supporting stroke rehabilitation
- The artificial pancreas shown to improve the treatment of type 1 diabetes
- The Lancet: Leading medical experts call for an end to UK postcode lottery for liver disease treatment and detection