Matthew Wilson Welp this was a counterproductive ad.

so true

@@charonsferryold ?

Tower of Fart

21st century humor in a shell nut:

​@@bengard18TOWER FART

sus💀

same XD

Is he having a meltdown? It’s not like the other flares.

"Pull my finger!"

yesyes

Oh we don't have TV advertising budgets like some energy companies! But with a bit of luck we'll end up with it being covered on TV... glad you liked it, thanks for the comment :)

ecotricity who needs a big budget when you can prey on fear and ignorance?

anonazero Oh - I guess you're someone who has a passion for fracking then? You seem quite angry and bitter - is that a side-effect?

ecotricity no, not really, I'm a software developer but I do know we've been fracking for over 75 years and its as safe as any other type of drilling. Most people that have a problem with it either have A. some vested interest in opposing fracking for financial reasons or B. have bought countless lies since its now in vogue to be against fracking. Don't be dumb. Educate yourself.

anonazero Apparently someone got offended by what I wrote above, hopefully you took it in the way it was intended?! How about: C - After looking at the facts decide that it's not sensible to proceed with fracking? On your point about 'conventional' drilling - that is not 'safe' either... The risks have been mitigated as much as possible, but we still have failing wells, spills etc...

yep xD

الفار البسؤ

2014

6 years later..

Thankfully, we now know this "anti-fracking" company was a fake, funded by Gazprom in order to make whole Europe dependable on their gas. People in democracies are easy to fool.

The fact this channel makes money off of sat videos of these things exploding.

Maybe because: It shouldn't take cutesie puppets and stuff at all to grab the public's attention, but here we are. If only you had a clue how your comment highlights EXACTLY what the underlying problem is with any progressive: business, social, or environmental agenda is - the IDIOTIC MASSES. Bravo on being a mainstream simpleton, and not even realizing it.

@@USMCCombatVet4TastyCrayons Bravo to responding to a 5 year old comment and thinking that the beliefs and attitudes portrayed in it are still current.

@@Kumahachi8 oh how simple and stupid you clearly STILL are. 1. Your PUBLIC opinions, comments, thoughts, FOLLOW YOU for as long as the platform, or at least some form of copy of what you said, remains accessible. 2. You are adorably deluded to think you not only have grown significantly in five years, but that the average human being is even capable of drastically changing (just as a due course of human nature) without major external influences. In other words, you thinking your presumptive and myopic intellectual naivete somehow just corrected itself and you are now a clever, clever girl. No. That isn't how human beings work. 3. You sound like a child to say such nonsense. 4. The fact you think how old a comment is has any relevance in its existence, is absurd. So, if I comment on the Bible, how is that different? If I comment on Shakespeare? What about a feminist prose, written by Annie Lennox 20 years ago? Do you not know how things like words in print work? So you not know how social media comments follow you? Hell, social media content has cost many celebrities their CAREERS. Yet. you think that is a clapback? 5. Finally, if MY response to a five year old comment is, according to you (because your kind LOVE inventing things strawman nonsense), sooooo weird/lame/asinine......... Why are YOU replying to it? That means you are replying to the five year old comment thread too, you do realize that, don't you? P.S. you might want to reevaluate YOUR self-constructed world of rules and beliefs, because if you think responding in such a BUTTHURT fashion to someone deriding THE MASSES by weaponizing your comment, you might be a bit too sensitive (and unhinged). Or, you might just be a teens-to-twenties Karen, that thought, "how DARE he talk to me like I am an average person!" I dunno.... regardless, enjoy your life of battery operated boyfriends.

@@Kumahachi8 by the way, do you know what a bunch of uploads (especially of anime and other Japanese otaku weebisms) and nothing of a girl's face means on social media?

LOLOLLOLOLLOLO HAHAHAHHA

XD

Yes xd

Yup

Orion meteor FALLOUT SERIES

1: It's Generally polluting 2: It has the worst long term effects of all the power sources 3: It's expensive to build 4: If nuclear fusion is perfected all harmful power sources would not be needed Giving a select amount of reason is inaccurate. Reasons could be more impactful than others. For example: List 3 reasons an apocalypse would be bad: 1: everyone would die as opposed to: 1: we would lose a species of ant 2: I would loose my job 3: It would be scary My point is that nuclear energy doesn't have many downsides, but the few downsides it has are tragic.

KSI : 1. It mostly produces water vapor, based on the system. The only harmful thing is nuclear radiation, caused by each cell, but usually they are placed far away from civilization. 2. True, I agree. 3. If you compare an nuclear power plant's energy output to a crap ton of windmills, you'll see the results. 4. Yes, but that requires too much maintenance.

the fallout series is after a war using nuclear bombs not after a meltdown

William Le So does nuclear energy. It's downtime is in the 48 hour range. To be honest not many people generally know everything about nuclear fusion. It's up for debate.

That u farted ??🤣

@@sparks2389 🤣

XD

HEHRBOI

Alif Nurfakhri yes, a BS message too. even if gas is a bad energy supply and we should move to nuclear. nothing wrong with fracking.

What? The evidence is in. If fracking was safe then why are the friggen frackers trying to pass laws keeping fracking information a secret? Hydraulic fracturing chemicals are exempt from federal disclosure laws www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/pennsylvania-fracking-disclosure_n_1422272.html www.naturalnews.com/042807_fracking_chemicals_gag_order_doctors.html Fracking and earthquakes confirmed: www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/confirmed-fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-f8C11073601

The first article is actually about a law that forces companies to disclose information about fracking, not silence it. The article states that "some doctors" say it "could have a chilling effect" but the actual point of the article is Smith's assertions that it will not gag doctors in any way... which seems sensible given that the law is about forcing companies to disclose this information... did you read this article before posting it?

Brad Pritikin Yes I read it but you did not. Or you purposely left out the part "the doctor must agree to hold the information in confidence." Get it Fracker? Drs are not allowed to speak publically when they find evidence that the fracking chemicals are hurting people. And for your info this isnt the first state that is trying this crap.

The second article, like everything on Natural News, is extremely biased. The article states "One of his patients was devastated by toxins from a nearby site, and he has treated several others affected by pollutants from fracking." It implies he is seeking this information to treat specific patients... but in the actual ruling the judge noted: “Although plaintiff alleges that he requires the kind of information contemplated under the act for the treatment of his patients, he does not allege that he has been in a situation where he needed or attempted to obtain such information, despite the fact that he alleges that he has treated patients injured by hydraulic fracturing fluid in the past. Similarly, plaintiff does not allege that he has been in a position where he was required to agree to any sort of confidentiality agreement under the act." This is not the first time I've caught Natural News lying. Their article says one of his patients was devastated by toxins (a favorite term used by people who don't understand chemistry or medicine) but the judge says this doctor DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT HE HAS BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE HE HAS NEEDED OR TRIED TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION. The Natural News article is clearly lying...

Further, the ingredients of fracking fluid are publicly known... the only information considered proprietary is the exact mix of these ingredients. fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used To be fair this is a website created by companies that do fracking... but it seems like they are completely willing to disclose what is used.

That is an industry insider perspective I never imagined existed and now I feel like the world got a little bigger

@@MysticKoolAidMan we also have a mouth-missing contest every Friday night. It's a fun town. You should visit sometime.

Maybe your car was leaking oil xD

I dunno. Pretty basic.

thats what im trying to vind out aswell

Are you still searching for it ?

This video does NOT provide information, of how bad it is. It is only emotion. Typical for the anti fracking agitators.

So does he or does he not like to Frack? I like to Boogy, Boogy Woogy, all night long))))

But I need a certain song. Might I add)))

Selling crack pays well too. It just depends on how shallow your morals are.

SkaterGamer OneTwoThree obviously not an American one because I didn't recognize it

I'm very happy having lights, warm showers and tv. I'm not happy having climate change. We don't need another source of fossil fuel when we should be focusing on reducing our carbon emissions.

Oklahoma. Loads of earthquakes there now that never were there before the fracking started. Plus it's really easy to contaminate water supplies with fracking.

@@geraintanderson5936 You missed his original point, people aren't willing to invest enough into the alternatives to make a replacement to fracking viable aside from energy shortages

@@cpufreak101 It's a bit simplistic to say people aren't willing to invest. Given two options - pay more for renewable energy, or pay less and our children can deal with the consequences - people will almost always choose to pay less. Doesn't make it the right thing to do. People weren't willing to end child labour and at the time the argument was made that if people were really opposed to it they would pay more to buy produce from companies that don't use children. But that didn't happen so government legislated against child labour and looking back on it (almost) everyone agrees it was the right thing to do. The same argument can be made for so many things through history and many of the benefits of modern society where vehemently opposed at the time. We shouldn't have the choice of putting money above all else. In time I hope we elect people who have the courage to stop our unnecessary use of fossil fuels as we have been stopped from using CFCs, selling tobacco to children, driving dangerously or owning assault weapons (in civilised countries at least). Or the next generation will never forgive us for the harm we're knowingly (unless you bury your head in the sand) doing to the planet.

Please don't say such things, Doublebow. In the future, we will ran out of coal and oil. Some coal power plants hardly have coal trains, and I think by the year 2030, we will ran out of coal. I get my electricity from hydroelectric power plants, which uses water, a renewable source that we need to survive. In truth, we can build cars that never needs oil and natural gas, for example cars with solar power plants. We can even use bikes, which never needs gasoline or diesel. For example, in Amsterdam, people use bikes to travel. That means that you can travel without cars.