Your witness fee, sir
The Environmental Protection Agency’s revised draft assessment of an Alaska mine project cites research from environmental consultants who admitted falsifying a report in an environmental lawsuit.
The EPA’s new review of the potential Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska, relied on research from Stratus Consulting and Ann Maest, the company’s managing scientist. Stratus recently admitted to providing false statements in a decades-long $19 billion lawsuit against the oil company Chevron.
This wasn’t just a mere goof-up, mind you: Chevron has been ordered to pay $19 billion by a corrupt court that supported its ruling by citing the faked data supplied by Stratus Consulting to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Environmental consultants doctoring data to suit the needs of their employer? What’s next, former politicians cashing in on the global warming hoax they created while in office?
For What It's Worth 
It all sarted here with Nutmeg sales as the cornerstone of our economy.
Heh
You can’t make this stuff up….
I believe there is widespread misconception by the public that “science” and the research that is produced is infallible. Much of science that is part of the daily conversation is junk. The only research that has merit is that which is peer reviewed (ie someone independent of the original research reviews/replicates the results). Even in this universe, there is a lot of sloppiness and fabrication in some cases. Unfortunately, debunked research is rarely discussed and the initial claims often last in the mindset of the average person creating more myths to be perpetuated by the agenda driven, like this case. The most egregious example is the Chevron boondoggle that has been dragged out and egged on by the plaintiffs tort industry that is looking to grab a large financial windfall for their own pockets. You think Wall Street is greedy and corrupt? These guys take the cake!
Peer review isn’t enough. It must be testable and verifiable to be science. Anything else is opinion.
That what peer review is by definition. Someone else other than the initial primary researcher replicates the results to validate. If it can’t be done by others then the results are invalidated. Unfortunately, this process takes time all the while the initial results are usually circulated. Subsequent invalidation is often very below the radar. No opinion just facts. And what would you suggest other than peer review since peer review is testing and verifying? Wikipedia?
Low tide has been very low of late, oceans receding?
Let’s start the Rachel Carson Prize.
Her book debunked, within months after publishing by PEER REVIEW…still is consumed daily throughout the education system. Perhaps it has softened the skulls of the numb of same to the point where they want more Gore. We could make it a thick skinned calcium rich shell shaped helmet made from recycled European Carbon Credit shreds…..with the privizo that it would have to worn at the Conservation Kommission “hearings” .
Earplugs included ? Or is that too radical ?
Anyway, Greenwich was extensively quoted in her splurt and convinced me…now as a recovering believer who suffers from Carsonomics daily it is the least I can do for our Town, as in least.
Peter – Go back to your ‘post card’ entries – dont bother with standard sized mail.
PS – Didn’t intend to sound harsh…I just get a kick out of the brevity of your typical post. As another reader said a while back, it’s as if you are submitting post cards to this forum.
Carefully pronounced but…”crit happens”…a sign of respect….
Thank You !
Short enuffff ?
Casablanca! One of my favorite movies!
Lol
xxoo