The Carnegie Mellon University life cycle is being properly treated by some in the media that kindly follow this blog as news, with Andy Leahy describing yesterday's posting as a "scoop."
Don Gilliland of the Harrisburg Patriot News for example covered the CMU study. See http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/new_shale_study_refutes_cornel.html. Gilliland is a careful reporter who has professionally, fairly covered the Marcellus story, providing all sides, and real light so I am not surprised that he wrote a story about the CMU study because he and many, many other reporters covered the Howarth study.
To be clear, while the Howarth study is junk, I do understand why so many reporters covered it. Andy Leahy in the Comment section to yesterday's posting describes the coverage of the Howarth study as a "tsunami."
I will track how many stories are written about the CMU study that is a careful effort and obviously done by researchers more interested in good science than gaining publicity. Please send me any stories about the CMU study that you see. Anyone want to bet that the CMU study will get as much coverage or more than the Howarth junk? I hope so but I would not take that bet.
I do hope that the CMU media operation would let the world know about the existence of this important study done by 6 CMU researchers.