Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
New Environment Agency Chairman Has Links To Fracking
Log In to post a reply

9 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
jshell
333 posts

Edited Jul 31, 2014, 07:09
Tell me another one!
Jul 31, 2014, 07:08
You are really clutching at straws there, FFS! What you linked to is so obviously pish to anyone who knows anything about frac'ing that it can only still be used by those with a personal agenda and failure to look at facts. Howart is an activist who sees clearly that frac'ing is so beneficial, whilst not being 'dirty' that he HAS to find some way to undermine it - just, that he, like others, have failed. It's laughable, just as the piece you quoted was found laughable by the greater scientific community. The problem is that lines are drawn so solidly that people must be 'one or t'other'.

It's OK to be 'green' and support frac'ing. The hysteria surrounding it is just that, hysteria.

------------------

New York Times Reversal: Cornell University Research Undermines Hysteria Contention that Shale Gas is “Dirty”

Posted on March 4, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment


There are new twists to in the ever-entertaining faux debate over the dangers of shale gas. The New York Times, which turned obscure Cornell University marine ecologist Robert Howarth into an anti-fracking rock star in its questionable spring series on shale gas, and got hammered for it by its own public editor—I‘ll take some of the credit—is finally getting on the science bandwagon.


Last April, the Times ran two articles in a week heavily promoting Howarth’s bizarre claim that shale gas generates more greenhouse gas emissions than the production and use of coal. It would be difficult to overstate the influence of this paper, which ricocheted through the media echo chamber and was even debated in the British parliament and the European Union.

When the Times didn’t report then, and until now has almost systematically ignored, is that almost every independent researcher — at the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Energy Department and numerous independent university teams, including a Carnegie Mellon study partly financed by the Sierra Club — has slammed Howarth’s conclusions. Within the field, Howarth is considered an activist, not an independent scientist. But you’d never know that reading the Times’ fracking coverage, with independent lefty columnist Joe Nocera as the notable, and refreshing, exception.

Maybe a little fresh air is finally leaking into the Times insular chambers. Calling Cathles’ report a “fresh rebuttal” of Howarth’s much-maligned study, Dot Earth’s Andrew Revkin cites the latest researcher to diss Howarth’s shaky science by a colleague at Cornell, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences professor Lawrence Cathles, who is an expert in this field, unlike Howarth.

U-Know! Forum Index