Science is a lot more than one scientist. Geologists have generally held that the phenomena claimed here (gas leaking up from fractures as far below the Earth as fracking occurs at) is not possible, so you have one set of credible people making an ordinary claim (methane from known coal deposits) and one set of…

You sure this was from fracking?

I fixed it for you.

Where are the journalistic standards? Absolutely no journalistic integrity is displayed in this article.

Alarmism and snark is basically all Gawker media does anymore. They hired a bunch of naive 20-somethings and gave them the run of the place. Quality has declined appreciably.

This was exactly my question. When you produce a headline like this one you should really back it up with facts, otherwise you are no better than the bias, agenda driven, dishonest mainstream media.

Update: the Australian governmental agency for scientific research says:

Shhhhh. Don't bring your facts around here, unless they are Good Facts We All Know.

You sure this was from fracking? Naturally occurring methane deposits leaking to the surface in quantities that can cause rivers to catch on fire is not a modern development.

This is a very good idea. I can see this doing extremely well with the tech crowd in the two areas.

“I think companies really need to get out of the habit on firing people because the internet demands a sacrifice.”

Like when the president of Mozilla was fired because the internet demanded it after finding out that he wasn’t in favor of gay marriage? Or was that one okay?

I think companies really need to get out of the habit of hiring SJWs just because the internet demands it. It only encourages censorship and bullying other people into believe what you want

Why is it fallacious? That’s my point. You seem to feel that it’s not right, but you don’t really have any constitutional grounds to support that argument.

How so? Why is it an impossibility to read a 17th century English text and also to read a 20th century text, and Shakespeare and Chaucer and the English translation of Ecclesiastes, and understand the words used in all? Also please explain how the Constitution is not the law of the land. Then from what does Obama…

Simply put, a rather large contingent of the Gawker commentariat have blinders on when it comes to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Some things are absolute (1st, 4th and 21st amendment) and should be interpreted exactly as written and aren’t open to change. Others perhaps need a modern translation like the…

Several people on the court believe the original intent is irrelevant. It just doesn't matter to them. Some even go so far as to cite foreign popular opinion as authority. That is, sadly, the reality

“Revisionist” ????

I know Anthony Scalia is the bete noire of the bien pensant types that write for Gawker blogs, but the man was far more than the arch-conservative stereotype that you will all bang your spoons over. No single Justice was a more consistent defender of the 1st and 4th Amendments (he upheld flag burning as legitimate…