Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UT Professor Resigns Over Fracking Conflict of Interest

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the drill-baby-drill dept.

Earth 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."

cancel ×

190 comments

"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (5, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263247)

No need to cuss.

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263435)

You must be from Caprica.

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (4, Funny)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263449)

Frack it all.

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264005)

Oh, believe me, big oil will "Frack It All".

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263517)

No need to cuss.

So say we all.

(And yes, I know it's technically misspelled for that joke to work, but just go with it.)

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263675)

Oh, I will definitely be calling someone a "Fracking Groat" today.

Re:"Fracking Conflict of Interest"? (5, Funny)

Shoten (260439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263917)

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?

Another instance of... (0)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263257)

"Correlation does not equal causation". Or isn't it ? :-P

Re:Another instance of... (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263427)

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... (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263677)

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... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263735)

Test their intelligence for at least a month. Start drilling holes somewhere on their heads. Then, take more samples periodically and compare.

That's pretty basic science. However, there's no reliable way to reverse the brain damage.

Re:Another instance of... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263801)

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:Another instance of... (1)

jjohnson (62583) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264579)

Awesome. Mod AC up.

Someone Please Mod Parent Up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264681)

Seriously, aquifers are not something that can just be "magically" cleaned or fixed.

Re:Another instance of... (1)

Tator Tot (1324235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263827)

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.

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.

They do this... constantly. Even if regulations don't demand it (for a good chunk of the rigs, anyways). Ever head of Nalco? The whole of the company specializes in water treatment... and their chemicals have been treated a good chunk of wastewater generated by fracking.

Re:Another instance of... (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263841)

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... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264163)

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:Another instance of... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264273)

That's why you include their family. You ALSO make the testing mandatory for the reason you point out.

Re:Another instance of... (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264469)

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... (2)

S77IM (1371931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263975)

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:Another instance of... (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264529)

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.

Resigning or Retiring? (1)

Deflatamouse (37653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263275)

With all that compensation, he can probably just retire and live a good life.

Or maybe go work full time for the drilling company.

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263327)

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:Resigning or Retiring? (-1, Offtopic)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263981)

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?

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (0)

ks*nut (985334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264101)

No, sometimes they just implode all by themselves.

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264119)

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 (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264195)

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 (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264581)

As I understand it, poisoning someone's food/water is a reason for threatening violence, no matter what the political or religious stance.

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264127)

Of course not, but to a very simple-minded conservative, every example of someone on the left who behaves poorly is "THE LEFT."

Keep in mind that the left is a very disorganized group, with very few actual radicals. When the far-left takes over the Democratic party the way far-right economics and religious extremism have driven everyone reasonable out of the Republican party, we can start freaking out about "The Left."

You should be a lot more worried about the reality-challenged conservatives and their delusions about the left.

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264157)

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:Resigning or Retiring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264215)

Our opponents are threatening to poison our supplies of drinking water; why should we not respond in kind?

Re:Resigning or Retiring? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264525)

He may have meant that they would serve him tap water instead of bottle.

Report (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263303)

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]

I am glad that I left the US... (1, Interesting)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263311)

... everyone's credibility is available for a few extra bucks. 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.)

Honestly, think of the environmental damage that's been done.

He had a responsibility to the public ... ugh.

I can't wait to watch the country continue to go down in flames.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263399)

You mean all the lower greenhouse gas emissions?

and rape your dog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263487)

he means he's going to come over to your house and light your faucet on fire.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263587)

No I'm pretty sure they grabbed every bit of praise they could for that part of it. It's the 'damage' part they said wouldn't happen and now, looky looky, he was on the payroll of companies that benefited from those lies...

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264709)

Just the fact that he left the university rather than the NG company says it all...

A lot of money? (2, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263419)

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 disclose the information voluntarily but that doesn't mean it was public information.

Re:A lot of money? (4, Interesting)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263585)

This isn't anyone. This was the Director of the USGS, which makes the whole situation even more despicable.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263455)

If you don't mind me asking....

Where did you go to when you left? Do you have a family that you support? I'm not trying to flame / troll. I'd really like to know about your experiences and where you're at.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263515)

I moved to Stockholm, Sweden, now in Frankfurt, Germany, moving to Copenhagen, Denmark in March. Personally, I find the that fracking is even allowed in the US quite ridiculous. I'm just thankful that is causes only localized environmental damage.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263617)

Allowed? It's been done for over 100 years, unless you're only talking about hydraulic fracking.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263629)

You think that literally breaking the earths crust into tiny pieces only causes localized environmental damage?

HAH.

Put a cracker flat on a table, against a wall. Push toward the wall. The cracker (generally) can resist a fair amount of lateral compressive force.

smash one section of the cracker with the back of a pencil. Anywhere. Along the wall, in the middle, near where you're pushing.

Repeat the lateral compression.

Localized change my ass.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (2)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264353)

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:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263507)

Yes, noone ever bribes anyone in other countries. Crime and corruption only exist in the U.S.

As you confess yourself, everyone's credibility is available for a few extra bucks, including all those around you wherever it is you happen to live.

Your wish for the demise of the country is shameful and deserving of all good folk's contempt.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263531)

... everyone's credibility is available for a few extra bucks. 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.)

Honestly, think of the environmental damage that's been done.

He had a responsibility to the public ... ugh.

I can't wait to watch the country continue to go down in flames.

Things are not that different elsewhere.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1, Troll)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264009)

But why is it that everyone rushed to hear Al Gore speak at universities, or to see "The Day After Tomorrow", knowing that he sat to benefit financially from carbon credit exchanges and "green energy" companies?

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264047)

I don't know anyone (who was reasonably educated) that did.

Re:I am glad that I left the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264615)

...because only alarmists are allowed to profit from their position.

Why is this on Slashdot? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263341)

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? Every single goddamn day there's some corrupt person in a position of power accepting money and putting out biased opinions. Are we going to have a story posted daily about who the "corrupt person of the day" is? This doesn't even have to do with computers, or anything even remotely nerd-like, aside from possibly the fact that he's a professor.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

kc67 (2789711) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263393)

I would have to agree. Nothing nerdy about this article!

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (4, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263411)

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:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263599)

Looking at the comments so far, I can see that we're already up to our ears in scientific discussion...

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263717)

Scientiwha discusswho now?

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263685)

This is really just where the ad hominems come out. This guy is a jerk, so fracking must necessarily be an environmental "nightmare". Someone else posts a bunch of counter-examples, and concludes that everything is just fine.

At no point do we calmly, carefully discuss this technology, or even the quality of the material in the original study. Your chances are even worse that we come to a rational conclusion like, "as with any technology, it would work fine if it was used responsibly."

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263803)

No, the point is actually "This guy got paid money from an industry group while writing a study whose conclusions would directly effect th and made no mention lf this conflict of interest". Let me guess, you would have been claiming ad hominem when peopl were pointing out that the only people claiming cigarettes didn't cause cancer were tobacco industry-paid people, right?

Because It Has Severe Implications for Our Future (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263471)

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 will affect everything nerd-like. To quote Jim Rogers [un.org] :

If the 19th century belonged to Britain, and the 20th century to the United States. Then the 21st century will surely belong to China. My advice: Make sure your kids learn Chinese.

And I feel like western nations are clawing at any sort of straw they can find to prevent that. Unfortunately I personally feel this has resulted in putting all our eggs in natural gas and developing those resources at all costs.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263565)

Cuz of the BSG puns, of course.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (2)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263595)

Because water is an ingredient in Mountain Dew and Red Bull, and contaminated water could effect the taste.

Effect (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264245)

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:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264267)

Can't we just add more Electrolytes to counter act the affect?

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Zephyn (415698) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263613)

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.

so it seems (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263373)

we're in for a repeat of the smoking and cancer studies. If at first the science doesnt work out in the shareholders interests, change your studies to "controversies" and buy some airtime on Fox News.

or simply revise the outcome to "fracking safe for multi-billionaires because drilling is illegal in marthas vinyard"

Re:so it seems (2)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263689)

Also climate-change denialism.

Public Accountability Institute (3, Insightful)

JBMcB (73720) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263489)

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:Public Accountability Institute (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263559)

No, they go after all manner of corruption. In this case, we had some public employees who were industry shills publishing a misleading study.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (-1, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263573)

Spend 5 minutes researching them and you discover that PAI is made up entirely of far left activists, including a former SEIU Union goon, a law STUDENT, and an eco-lawyer.

The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263619)

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?

Re:Public Accountability Institute (1, Flamebait)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264069)

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:Public Accountability Institute (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264099)

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.

Strawman. What is PAI doing that is comparable to the atrocities committed during the French Revolution?

Re:Public Accountability Institute (0, Flamebait)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264147)

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.

Strawman. What is PAI doing that is comparable to the atrocities committed during the French Revolution?

You missed the point, that doing something that you think is good does not change the ethical nature of what you are doing. Lying for the greater good and lying for money are equally as unethical.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264259)

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.

Strawman. What is PAI doing that is comparable to the atrocities committed during the French Revolution?

You missed the point, that doing something that you think is good does not change the ethical nature of what you are doing. Lying for the greater good and lying for money are equally as unethical.

Where is PAI lying?

Re:Public Accountability Institute (-1, Flamebait)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264309)

When they claim that every Fracking well is unsafe.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264345)

And where do they claim that? Specifics please.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264347)

When they claim that every Fracking well is unsafe.

Where?! What the fuck is wrong with you? Use some citations or shut up. This is about statements made on a link between groundwater contamination and fracking!

Re:Public Accountability Institute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42264499)

Why is that a lie?

Re:Public Accountability Institute (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264305)

Lying for the greater good and lying for money are equally as unethical.

But PAI was not lying.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (2)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264103)

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.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (4, Insightful)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263699)

Seeing as you are using the loaded terms "far left", "Union goon", "eco-lawyer" and - for some reason - feel compelled to capitalize "STUDENT", your credibility is sorely lacking in any kind of truly intelligent discussion. Move along - the talk radio fest is starting and you don't want to miss your daily dose of anti-intellectualism, rampant paranoia, fear-mongering and sloganeering. PS - for some reason you omitted ACORN. I know they don't exist anymore but that hasn't seemed to stop the screeching about them....

Re:Public Accountability Institute (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263887)

Which *might* be a reasonable argument when they first questioned the study. Now, however, it's been definitively proven that there was blatant conflict of interest, the professor has resigned and the report retracted.

Leftist hippies or not...they were right in claiming this was a problem and have been vindicated as such.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263597)

Well if you read the PAI's report, it was stated that the University of Texas requested the investigation and report.

Re:Public Accountability Institute (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263757)

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'.

Funny coincidence (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263525)

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.

Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (-1, Troll)

approachingZero (1365381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263669)

Not trying to troll here because I got my karma above whale shit level but here we go. (ahum) 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. 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. Even better their colleges come to the rescue and whitewash and cover-up to the applause of so many here at slashdot. Isn't that just amazing?

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263737)

Not trying to troll here because I got my karma above whale shit level but here we go. (ahum) 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. 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. Even better their colleges come to the rescue and whitewash and cover-up to the applause of so many here at slashdot. Isn't that just amazing?

You're either trolling or incomprehensibly ignorant. Right now I'm leaning toward both. Cite some sources for your claims that these are two identical situations or go find somewhere else to be clueless.

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263889)

Phil Jones ignored FOI requests for a total of 7 years. When it was becoming apparent that he was going to HAVE to hand over his research THEN he deleted it in fear that it would get out. The UK refused to look into it until AFTER the statue of limitations and their investigation came up clean with the claim that he could not be prosecuted because the statue of limitations had already passed. They admitted he broke the law, but you never hear that all you will hear is he was not charged or convicted.

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (0)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264007)

He'a definitely trolling since the professors in the Climategate controversy were earwd of wrongdoing by multiple parties who investigated the matter. The GP is just another butthurt denialist.

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (0)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264019)

"Cleared" not "earwd"

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263931)

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:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263997)

The East Anglia professors were completely exonerated literally years ago...do try and keep up.

As for PSU, if you mean this [wikipedia.org] review of Dr. Mann, well they also found no evidence of wrongdoing on any level.

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264065)

He probably didn't hear about it since neither Fox News nor the right-wing talk radio pundits like Limbaugh would have mentioned how the professors were shown to have done nothing wrong. That way they can continue to beat the Climategate controversy drum while their base froths at the mouth.

Re:Some people have ethics, some not so much . . . (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264015)

If you don't want your karma to drop, you might want to consider not making shit up. Not comparing apples to oranges and not blatantly lying might also help. Despite a lot of idiocy, slashdot is still pretty good at catching dishonest trolling and dealing out the appropriate karmic reward.

publicity stunt for Promiseland movie? (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263825)

anti-fracking movie released later this month. Matt Damon and Gus Van Sant.

large fraction of population owns oil stocks (1)

peter303 (12292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263869)

Its in most broad-based index stocks in a small amount. Major oil companies are in the top 20 components of the S&P etc.

I just came here to say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42263895)

J...j 0...o H...h N...n N...n Y...y F...f 0...o 0...o T...t B...b A...a L...l L...l !!!

Also...Saw em off [aggielandoutfitters.com]

Mishkin (2)

terbeaux (2579575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42263985)

"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/inside-job-prompts-new-look-conflict-interest-policy [columbiaspectator.com] . Which may be why UT is floating its witches with its ducks now. Which coincidentally makes me happy.

I Would Comment on This... (1)

ks*nut (985334) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264067)

But I wouldn't know where to begin. Does the bubble burst now on inexpensive natural gas? Do they (the fracking companies) stop their activties or just go on with business as usual? Do the citizens in fracking areas have legal recourse? Is what passes for mainstream journalism going to pay any attention to what has happened? Will there be a congressional inquiry or are they too busy impersonating lemmings at the fiscal cliff? Yep, some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...

Groat apparently has a bit of a history... (5, Interesting)

edi_guy (2225738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264483)

So once again he is asked to resign due to a controversy but maintains he was leaving anyway....want to bet that there will be a scandal at the "Water Institute of the Gulf" (his new gig) in a year or two? Below from a posting on stateimpact.npr.org by 'DoryHippauf ' Charles Groat Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS ) resigned as Director on June 17, 2005. WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Geological Survey chief resigned Thursday, but a spokeswoman said his departure has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation into e-mails that indicate his agency's employees may have falsified data on the Yucca Mountain project. Between 1998 and 2000, three USGS scientists working on water infiltration projects for the proposed Yucca Mountain facility exchanged emails revealing that they had altered or outright falsified the results of their research to produce desired outcomes. At the hearing, Groat declined to discuss the e-mails in detail pending inspector general investigations. 'We have a 125-year reputation for sound, unbiased science," Groat said in written testimony submitted to the panel. "Anything that casts aspersions on that reputation disturbs us greatly. We, as do you, look forward the to completion of the ongoing investigations to fully determine the impacts and appropriate responses."

Call it what it is (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about a year and a half ago | (#42264521)

Stop calling it fracking, and start calling it undermining.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...