Well, imagine that! Do you suppose they made a mistake because obviously, they weren’t paying attention to whoever funded them and wanted the original results. Like Steve says, I don’t hate environmental scientists either, I too have some in the family. I do, however, hate fraud and deceit. Here’s Steve
In March 2015, the journal Environmental Science and Technology published findings of study linking natural gas extraction activity to high levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) in Carroll County, OH. The study’s conclusions were widely repeatedin the press and the paper was cited in at least nine other studies and peer-reviewed journals.
On June 29, 2016, the paper was quietly retracted. “Mistakes were made”, as they say.
Seth Whitehead at Energy in Depth has more:
UC’s rush to publish its air study while it dawdles for a year in publishing itsgroundwater study finding no harm from fracking is even more interesting considering the results of both studies were first announced at events hosted by Carroll County Concerned Citizens (CCCC), a well-known anti-fracking group. The same professor that presented the air quality study results to CCCC, study co-lead author Dr. Erin Hayes, has also participated in other anti-fracking events. [Emphasis added.]
- Scientists operate in cahoots with local anti-development activists.
- Scientists rush to publish (flawed) results that agree with their anti-development bias.
- Scientists sit on relevant data that fails to advance their agenda.
This is not environmental science, it is a sciency charade dressed up for propaganda purposes by agenda-driven activists.
Something we’ve been talking about recently is our population’s (here and the UK both) disregard for experts. Well, this limns a good part of the reason, especially when you realize this study was used as a source in several peer-reviewed articles.
Authored By nebraskaenergyobserver