UT Professor Resigns Over Fracking Conflict of Interest 190
eldavojohn writes "Dr. Charles 'Chip' Groat, lead author of a study claiming there was no link between fracking and water contamination, has resigned at the University of Texas along with Dr. Raymond Orbach, the head of UT's Energy Institute. The reason is that Groat served on the board of a drilling company and received compensation totaling over $1.5 million from that entity over the last five years including time he spent writing the study. After the Public Accountability Initiative gave the UT report a thorough beating for failing to mention this it sparked UT to recommend the report's withdrawal. PAI said the original report was 'based on literature surveys, incident reports and conjecture' and criticized UT's press from downplaying the many caveats. PAI also said conclusions of the original report were 'tentative,' that the press coverage was 'inappropriately selective' and 'seemed to suggest that public concerns were without scientific basis and largely resulted from media bias.' This study was also covered by Slashdot via MSNBC quoting Groat and calling fracking safe in theory but not in practice."
"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (Score:5, Funny)
No need to cuss.
Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, he's been called out as a fracking liar, over his fracking conflict of interest. Which is all the more reprehensible since he's a fracking expert. I mean, if we can't trust the fracking experts, who will we turn to when we need fracking information to make fracking decisions, anyways?
Report (Score:5, Informative)
To give this more background, the conflict of interest investigation panel's report is here:
http://www.utexas.edu/news/PDF/Review-of-report.pdf [utexas.edu]
My quick summary is that the white papers produced by the study were not criticized, but mostly said "this hasn't been well studied, and we can't draw conclusions", but the summary presentation by Groat, who did not actually participate in the study, modified this to "there's no evidence of a link between health effects and fracking"
The (almost content free) press release from UT is here: http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/12/06/university-accepts-shale-gas-development-report/ [utexas.edu]
It's discussed on the NYTimes blog here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/damning-review-of-gas-study-prompts-a-shakeup-at-the-university-of-texas/ [nytimes.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also climate-change denialism.
Public Accountability Institute (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like PAI basically publishes research that attacks papers that deem fracking safe. They might very well be accurate, but something tells me if a well researched and accurate study showing that fracking is indeed safe, it isn't going to make the front page of this site.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They might very well be accurate
Given that they are the ones who got UT to review this study...AND it's now been thoroughly debunked and the author resigned...
I'd say they were pretty 'accurate'.
Re:Public Accountability Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public Accountability Institute (Score:5, Insightful)
Leftist hippies or not...they were right in claiming this was a problem and have been vindicated as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.
Who's less ethical: a person motivated by money or a person motivated by what they feel is right?
Are you really that naive? The French Revolution is the perfect example, people doing unspeakable and horrible things all in name of the greater good.
Re: (Score:3)
That the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions doesn't mean the rocket boosted mach 3 rail link to hell isn't built with bad ones.
Concern over groundwater contamination isn't some sort of leftist conspiracy to make everyone bicycle to work. Potable water is infinitely more important in the grand scheme of things than getting every last ounce of hydrocarbons out of the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
And to what extent is it happening?
Re: (Score:2)
And where do they claim that? Specifics please.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you implying that the person that 'says' they are motivated by what they feel is right is a savior, it doesn't matter that they are entirely financed by opposing interests?
Thank you for your valuable insight Mr. (multimillionaire) Gore.
Funny coincidence (Score:3)
I just took my ethics final this morning and one of the questions was like this scenario. The professor has a history of incorporating current events; I wonder if this was one and the same.
publicity stunt for Promiseland movie? (Score:2)
large fraction of population owns oil stocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mishkin (Score:2)
"Inside Job" [theothersc...nomics.org] alleges that Frederic Mishkin was paid $135,000 by the previous Icelandic regime to lie in a report about how sound the Icelandic economy was. It is interesting to see how defensive he becomes while being interviewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5msVl3oZl4U [youtube.com]
"Mishkin was confirmed as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve on September 5, 2006 to fill an unexpired term ending January 31, 2014. On May 28, 2008, he submitted his resignation from the Board of Governors, effective August 31, 2008, in order to revise his textbook and resume his teaching duties at Columbia Business School." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Mishkin#Career [wikipedia.org]
I really like the part where his textbook is more important than his job at the Federal Reserve. I trust this guy. Really.
Now it looks like other Universities are taking disclosure seriously: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/04/13/ [columbiaspectator.com]
Groat apparently has a bit of a history... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I wonder which way this guy who's now in bed with the NG industry affected the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage project, which is now dead...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, especially since the "desired outcome" for Yucca Mountain was always to never implement it. It was a pipe dream that some folks thought up in the 1970s that would have made quite a difference in the handling of nuclear fuel rods. Contrast this with today where there is a multibillion dollar industry in keeping fuel rods safe from politicians and scientists.
We could start recycling fuel rods but with the current thinking (or lack thereof) we are going to be storing these things indefinately -
Call it what it is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can he even show his face? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all just don't understand. (Score:3)
Some Background on the Disconnect with Fracking (Score:5, Informative)
We'll start with a well that is drilled, cased (casing is a solid-steel pipe all or some of the depth of the well, used to keep "stuff from coming in, or stuff from coming out"), and perforated (holes shot through the casing with explosives). Typically all of this work is done by contractors. The oil company leases the ground being drilled on. Everything else... the oil rig, the drill pipe, the workers... all of it belongs to other subcontractors. One "company man" from the actual oil company sits in a trailer on site to monitor the work. This involves a lot of waiting for someone to ask a question, and playing solitaire.
The oil company now has an outside contractor come in to frac the well. Literally, this is the next morning after the perf job if possible, because a rig costs tens of thousands of dollars a day to sit there and wait. Over a dozen big trucks come in at the crack of dawn, and link up so that over over the day, viscous, proprietary-formula fluids can be pumpted into the well to induce cracks in the formation from the overpressure of the pumping. Then a proprietary "breaker" fluid is injected to make the original goop less viscous, and to make it drop the sand embedded in it to hold these cracks open. The former goop, now runny (fingers crossed), will flow out as the well produces. The trucks are out of there the second they're done; *they* cost money sitting around too, and they're probably off to another job the next day.
-inc soapbox
My personal, biased opinion of the disconnect with fracking, the industry, and its effects, is that there is a science problem, and an accountability problem.
Scientifically, there are a number of wonderful calculations that tell us how we're effecting events inside the well. These models tend to assume an understanding of the various strata and depositions drilled through, and can easily confuse the ability to make a model match an event, with the ability to understand the mechanics of an event. This leads to an environment where current perceptions of the industry and the confidence/ego of the simulation's creator are the deciding factors. Since much of this science has migrated out of the oil companies and into the contractors over the years (or to contractor-supported academics), the operators now base their knowledge on what the contractors say is correct (this is an oversimplification, but overall I feel it is correct).
On accountability: trade secret formulas mean we have no idea what is pumped in the well. The "in and out" nature of the fracking process means that crews who perform the work have little exposure to the site, and no connection to followup on the effects of their work. Oil companies serve as the face of the project to the land owner, but have outsourced all the science to the contractors, and are defending work they understand based on the explanation of a salesperson to a client.
-rem soapbox
The above problems do not at all prove that fracking is bad, or good. They do, however, create a disconnect, making it hard to develop a cohesive picture of what is going on, good or bad.
To put it into (hopefully?) a useful tech metaphor, the contractors make the computers, and the oil company sells them to people. People complain to the oil companies that some of these computers are terrible. The oil company naturally says "oh no, we only sell good computers," and runs to the contractor. The contractor tells the oil company, "No, they're great, look at these schematics. Those people are outliers due to blah blah blah." So the oil company gives those people their money back, and makes them promise not to bad mouth the computers they're selling. Repeat as needed, until the evidence of problems with the computers is so great that the oil company cannot ignore the truth any longer, and starts selling someone else's computers at great cost and effort. Because... those computers will have *great* schematics.
Re: (Score:2)
Background: I was in well testing, and have been to many a fracked well during/before/after the frac was performed.
I was in geophysics.
We'll start with a well that is drilled, cased (casing is a solid-steel pipe all or some of the depth of the well, used to keep "stuff from coming in, or stuff from coming out"), and perforated (holes shot through the casing with explosives).
Where? That's the question that's been screaming at me all through this.
Ottawa, Canada's basically on the sheild. In Manitoba, you're lucky to see 300 milliseconds of stratigraphy. Saskatchewan, 500 ms. On the East side of the Rockies, up to 5 seconds of data.
Consequently, if you're drilling a deep play in Alberta, you're very unlikely to be affecting the water table in any significant way by fracking. In Eastern Ontario, you'll be lucky to find stratigraphic geology.
If you're again
Are we being equal? (Score:3)
Are anti-fracking studies from members of Greenpeace or the Sierra Club suddenly invalid too?
Re:Resigning or Retiring? (Score:5, Interesting)
He might want to, um, keep a close eye on his drinks any time he is in fracking country... There might be one or two angry locals to contend with.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the left have to physically threaten all their opponents?
Holy conclusion jumping, Batman! Why do you imply he's a leftist for stating that people whose water got contaminated due to fracking might not like guys like these professors? I see nothing political in that statement.
Environmental protection is left wing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you imply he's a leftist for stating that people whose water got contaminated due to fracking might not like guys like these professors?
As I understand it, restrictions on acts of large businesses, such as measures to protect natural resources from misuse, are considered a left-wing position in United States politics.
Re:Environmental protection is left wing (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, poisoning someone's food/water is a reason for threatening violence, no matter what the political or religious stance.
Re: (Score:2)
No you weren't, you were implying that the left is violent because of a few peoples comments, while ignoring your own party's recent violent rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are initiating violence by poisoning those people's water in the first place, then turnaround is fair game.At least, if they get served that very water they allegedly poisoned.
Re:Resigning or Retiring? (Score:5, Informative)
Unless I've missed a major demographic shift, the people most personally affected by fracking are only slightly more left leaning than the people most personally affected by Appalachian coal mining techniques...
Liberals do tend to be against this sort of thing at a policy level; but the supply of people who've been personally fucked over is generally drawn from an entirely different geographic and social stratum.
But don't let me derail your internal narrative or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like the 2nd amendment remedies talked about on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... I haven't seen that kind of threat of violence since... yesterday, when the Michigan union bosses promised "there will be blood". Does the left have to physically threaten all their opponents?
Does the right think that it is exempt from the consequences of their actions?
Re: (Score:3)
The chief difference nowadays seems to be that the Left (not that the Left meaningfully exists as any coherent entity in the States, the Democrats by and large being a slightly right of center party by most standards) is actually interested in winning elections and not in the bizarre and self-defeating navel gazing exercise of ideological purity.
Wanting to win elections tends to mean aligning your platform and policies to what a majority of voters want, rather than trying to sell voters your particular visi
Re: (Score:3)
Our opponents are threatening to poison our supplies of drinking water; why should we not respond in kind?
By putting bottled water into their petrol tanks?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, you just got me in trouble. Laughed my ass off when my boss was walking in.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for the post is that there is scientific discussion to be had. Slashdot is not just about computers, but science and technology as well.
The nature of the article, and corruption of course, increases the amount of discussion. Pointing out corruption is in general a way of beefing up the post count on the thread. I kind of get your point, but, but will counter with the fact that numerous people come here posting information from those corrupted sources and claim fracking is not harmful. In my opinion, those two points wash each other out.
Just grab some popcorn and watch the show.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientiwha discusswho now?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the guy is a jerk and a fraud, and the question about the potential harm to groundwater by fracking remains unanswered.
Because It Has Severe Implications for Our Future (Score:3)
Seriously, why the hell is this on Slashdot?
Well, I like to think that when a news reports on something like a study and it turns out that there was a reason to doubt that study in the first place, it's that news organization's prerogative to make sure that they follow up on that story. The fact is he's still listed on the board of PXP [pxp.com].
This doesn't even have to do with computers, or anything even remotely nerd-like ...
Fracking is indeed nerd-like for the geologists, environmentalists and anyone concerned with energy or resource dependence. Fracking for shale resources is going to have a key effect on the future of the world. That
Re: (Score:3)
Effect (Score:2)
Because water is an ingredient in Mountain Dew and Red Bull, and contaminated water could effect the taste.
What kind of taste do you think this sort of contamination would effect (that is, bring about) in Mountain Dew?
Re: (Score:2)
Corrupt person receives ungodly amount of money and puts out questionable study in favour of his benefactor. Film at 11.
Seriously, why the hell is this on Slashdot?
The reason it still needs to be reported regularly is because there's still a large chunk of the population that pretends that this sort of Rent-an-Expert shenanigans never happen. Scientific integrity is certainly relevant this site.
Ignorance prospers when good nerds do nothing. (Score:2)
A lot of money? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am glad that I left the US everyone's credibility is available for a few extra bucks
If you really believe that then we're glad you left too.
To be honest, 1.5M USD is a pretty damned small amount of money...
Are you some kind of billionaire that you think a million US$ is a small amount of money? That's more than the combined life savings of both of my (retired) parents combined. You can live very comfortably for a lot of years with that amount of money.
To be honest, 1.5M USD is a pretty damned small amount of money (his salary should be publicly available as he's a state employee in Texas), perhaps as little as 7 years salary (if a full prof.)
His salary from the University might be but payments like this aren't done through the university and likely are not subject to such scrutiny. It was clearly a huge ethical screw up for him not to disclo
Re:A lot of money? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't anyone. This was the Director of the USGS, which makes the whole situation even more despicable.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't wait to watch the country continue to go down in flames."
How very ummm... christian of you.
And fuck you for wishing that me and all those I love have to endure the destruction of our country.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, 1.5M USD is a pretty damned small amount of money (his salary should be publicly available as he's a state employee in Texas), perhaps as little as 7 years salary (if a full prof.)
His 1.5M USD over 5 years is $300,000 per year over and above his UT salary. Definitely moves him a step up from whore to call girl, but maybe not enough to rate all the way to courtesan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The methane and CO2 emitted because of fracking cause more than localized environmental damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously describing an experiment with a cracker and then extrapolating the results to be true on a contential plate scale?
Do I even have to say ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE!!
You cannot extrapolate experimental results from that scale to a global scale and retain any true value from your experiment.
This is a snake oil salesman's trick.
I'm not saying that Fracking might not be a bad thing, I'm just saying that using a cracker to prove that Fracking is a bad thing is total, utter BULLSHIT.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just the fact that he left the university rather than the NG company says it all...
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like him or loath him, at the end of the da
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to say if fracking pollutes water. Make the author of the study, the bosses of the drilling companies, the main owners of the banks who finance them and their families drink the water they guarantee as safe.
House the japanese government in the Fukushima district.
Then I'll trust them :)
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
That's pretty basic science.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
That's pretty basic science.
It's also a stellar way of fucking a water supply that can't be unfucked. Go drink the water in West Virginia sometime, then I'll schedule to discuss this with you if I can find time around your goiter appointments with your doctor.
So what happens after the water goes south and continues to go south? "Basic science" to the rescue? Hahahaha. Let's burn a ton of fossil fuels and see if the world gets warmer, it's basic science!
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. Mod AC up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you, though "goiter" probably isn't the best example. It's caused by iodine deficiency, not crap in the water.
The problem with the crap in the water is that it takes years, or decades, to manifest itself. It shows up as an increase in chronic illnesses, so you can't claim all by yourself that your case was caused by them. It's very difficult to trace health problems to any one source of pollution.
By the time you've managed to put together a rock-solid case that can survive the FUD the industry
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's also a stellar way of fracking a water supply that can't be unfracked.
FTFY
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, nowhere did he say the WV water issue was caused by tracking. Hell I instantly thought of coal mining. What he was saying is when you fuck up an aquifer there is no way to reverse the damage, which leads to screwing everyone who lives in the area.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Informative)
Living in West Virginia, I can answer this... In the southern coalfields where they are doing mountaintop removal (surface mining to use the exact phrasing) there are way higher levels of selenium and other cancer causing agents in the local water:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/category/selenium/ [wvgazette.com]
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/category/water-pollution/ [wvgazette.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens after the water goes south and continues to go south?
Yeah, that's insightful, but the straight-man answer is basic liability. The people, cities, and government sue/prosecute/regulate the industry. When you can prove that, yes you indeed DID do things that violated EPA regulations then out comes the axe. The fear of being brought to the axe-block is what keeps people from doing bad things. That's, at least the idea. So once the water goes south, this keeps it from continuing to go south.
Most of us who aren't libertarians would suggest that the easier way of doing this would be for the government/cities/people to pass lawa preventing the industry fucking things up in the first place, but I know that's an evil socialist infringement on the free market.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
By making them actually drink the water, you align their personal risk assessment with the risks they ware willing to apply to others. I'm guessing that their estimate of acceptable risk will be somewhat reduced that way.
In addition, they suddenly become very interested in an accurate and comprehensive testing of water samples rather than a cursory rubber stamp.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be more of a psychological assessment than an environmental one, and you might be surprised by the results. For example, Thomas Midgely, famously, huffed straight-up tetra-ethyl lead at a press conference to prove to the world that it was a safe additive for gasoline. It took him about a year to recover, but he got away with it, and his chemical was widely sold.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you include their family. You ALSO make the testing mandatory for the reason you point out.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, we just ask a simple question: Is there a CHANCE this could permanently fuck up the water supply? No? Proceed. Yes? Better Safe than Sorry. For essential things like food, water, shelter, we really shouldn't take any unnecessary risks. Let's face it, the only reason fracking is done is money, which is less important than water. We can live without natural gas, and oil, but not water. Also: Try not to over think things, it's a waste of time and energy.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I'm generally against fracking, but it seems *less bad* than huge oil pipelines and/or buying tons of oil from countries that hate us. That is, to use the (natural) gas in the meantime while building out infrastructure for renewable energy (more people using solar, electric car charging infrastructure).
Plus, we're never going to actually run out of water. It may become very expensive, but there's always the ocean water to desalinate.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, interesting read on Midgely [wikipedia.org]. And if his contributions to the development of TEL and CFCs weren't enough to nominate him for the "bad scientist of the century" award, he should also be nominated for the "Darwin Award of the century"...
In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. This led him to devise an elaborate system of strings and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. This system was the eventual cause of his death when he was accidentally entangled in the ropes of this device and died of strangulation at the age of 55.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he was hoisted by his own petard.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just take them afterward. It's not like the water's initial condition has any bearing on whether it's safe to drink today.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:4, Informative)
The point of taking samples beforehand is that you can then say "look, these are exactly the chemicals that your fracking added to this water" and they can't try to worm out of it by claiming those chemicals were already there.
Obviously.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You do need to take into account seasonal variation of the water table.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I'd imagine you could average it out by taking samples from all the different wells.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have got an easier test for you, it's called the legislative test. If corporations are going to start doing something that is highly profitable but has a very high risk of harm, look for new wonky regulations to protect those profits.
Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, removing the bulk of fiscal liability for contaminating water supplies.
End of test. Hydraulic fracturing is dangerous and will pollute water supplies. OTHERWISE WHY CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Re:Another instance of... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd drink the effluent from a waste water treatment plant. It's clean... Cleaner than the water in the river it's being discharged into. In fact, if it weren't for squeamish people like you, we'd save a ton of money chlorinating that effluent and pumping it right back into the drinking water supply, but instead we contaminate it by putting it back in nature and sending it downstream to the next treatment plant that has to spend tons of money just to get all of the nature filtered back out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link for that? I'm aware of no potable effluent from municipal waste water treatment plants.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/smallsystems/pubs/625r04108.pdf [epa.gov]
Warning, large PDF. This is the EPA guidelines for reuse of water. They all have to meet certain standards, additional treatment may need to be done to meet those standards. If you hooked up the outlet of a waste water treatment plant (what I call a poo processing plant or 3P) to the inlet of a water treatment plant (my term is a chlorination and filtration emporium), you'd have better quality water in most cases.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to say if fracking pollutes water. Make the author of the study, the bosses of the drilling companies, the main owners of the banks who finance them and their families drink the water they guarantee as safe.
House the japanese government in the Fukushima district.
Then I'll trust them :)
So you're saying that you'll drink the fresh water that gets immediately pumped out of a sewage plant and into rivers? You've a brave person. How about I take a dump in a cup, clean it out with bleach, soap, and water, then pour a glass of water for you to drink. Or you can, ya know, just simply have it tested.
The point is that if the biased, the greedy, and the financiers were forced to drink the water that is forced upon the powerless and voiceless, there would be a lot more care taken to ensure no pollution is made.
Interesting tangent (IMHO) on the whole "drink it, rich man" thing. One highlight [wikipedia.org]:
On October 21, 1959, Chisso was ordered by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to switch back its wastewater drainage from the Minamata River to Hyakken Harbour and to speed up the installation of wastewater treatment systems at the factory. Chisso installed a Cyclator purification system on December 19, 1959, and opened it with a special ceremony. Chisso's president Kiichi Yoshioka drank a glass of water supposedly treated through the Cyclator to demonstrate that it was safe. In fact, the wastewater from the acetaldehyde plant, which the company knew still contained mercury and led to Minamata disease when fed to cats, was not treated through the Cyclator at the time. Testimony at a later Niigata Minamata disease trial proved that Chisso knew the Cyclator to be completely ineffective: "...the purification tank was installed as a social solution and did nothing to remove organic mercury."
Re: (Score:3)
This is a great idea. By subjecting CEOs to the negative consequences of the company's business practices, they justify their high salaries and we get a virtuous cycle; it's a win-win.
-- 77IM
Re: (Score:3)
I've always said CEOs and their entire families should be downstream/wind of their plants.
Most places would have environmental standards above the minimums.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always said CEOs and their entire families should be downstream/wind of their plants.
I've always said: If corporations are people, then the CEO is the Head. The head should be affixed to the body and depend on it to live, much the way a real person's head is. This way, when the entity is assemble you need to be careful of which head you select, because they're going to be there for a mandatory minimum timespan of say, 20 years (or death / severe illness). If a person sees their body is sick or wounded, the head tries to do everything they can to take care of the body... The head shouldn
Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
So the take away here is that these geologists at the University of Texas are ethical, even the appearance of impropriety is enough for them to step down.
Which is not what happened heree. They hid their conflict of interest while writing and after publishing their paper. They only stepped down because they got caught. If you think they resigned completely of their own choice is hilariously naive.
But when professors funding research through climate change alarmism are caught red handed manipulating data at the University of East Anglia and Pennsylvania State University they just hang in there.
*yawn* Climategate was a manufactured controversy by oil industy shills. Maybe you missed it but the professors were acquitted of any wrongdoing by multiple independent parties who investigated the matter in both the UK and the US. That is why they still have their jobs unlike the professors in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
As for PSU, if you mean this [wikipedia.org] review of Dr. Mann, well they also found no evidence of wrongdoing on any level.
No (Score:2)
He had it right.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad this got modded informative. The data that Jones deleted was from temperature stations he wasn't using in his analysis and is still available from the original sources. In fact the BEST [berkeleyearth.org] study used data from all sources so it included the data that Jones deleted. BEST's results were very similar to Jones's. You have to remember, back when Jones deleted it that data storage was still quite expensive.