when the local cbs station, wral, posted them on their website they essentially tried to crowd-source them. they called on their viewers to search through the files themselves and flag anything that might be newsworthy. the agency in question here is the north carolina department of the environment. they re the state agency where more than a dozen of their employees have received federal criminal grand jury subpoenas and the u.s. attorney s investigation into the recent giant coal ash spill in north carolina and the relationship between the company responsible for that spill, duke energy, and the state government. the administration of north carolina governor pat mccrory. pat mccrory happens to have worked at duke energy for 30 years before he became the state s governor and before duke energy s toxic gunk pouring into the dan river became the third largest coal ash spill in the history of this country. on friday the state posted those 13,000 pages related to duke energy s coal ash all
coal ash ponds at duke university says that s because there isn t one. dr. abner vengosh of duke university published multiple studies on coal ash skills and contamination. told about the comments, the scientist tells wral, there s no published study that casts any doubt on whether moving coal ash out of leaky landfills is the best move for the environment. the exact quote from the scientist is this. what are they talking about? of course not. can there s evidence of groundwater contamination and surface water contamination at the coal ash pond, then leaving it as is obviously isn t an option if the environment is something you care about. you don t need to be joe chemist to figure that out. but what if you re jerome corsi trying to figure that out? or governor pat mccrory who apparently believes the same anti-science denialist nonsense about this disaster he s supposed to be dealing with in his state right now? the best-case scenario is to
dr. avner vengosh of duke university published multiple studies on coal ash skills and contamination. told about the comments, the scientist tells wral, there s no published study that casts any doubt on whether moving coal ash out of leaky landfills is the best move for the environment. the exact quote from the scientist is this. what are they talking about? of course not. can there s evidence of groundwater contamination and surface water contamination at the coal ash pond, then leaving it as is obviously isn t an option if the environment is something you care about. you don t need to be joe chemist to figure that out. but what if you re jerome corsi trying to figure that out? or governor pat mccrory who apparently believes the same anti-science denialist nonsense about this disaster he s supposed to be dealing with in his state right now? the best-case scenario is to move the ash ponds, but i also have to understand that in some cases that option may not be environmental sound
the environment. the answer is, he says, nobody knows at this point in time. nobody knows. is oil a fossil fuel? nobody knows. is there climate change? nobody knows. should coal ash pits that are leaking toxins be cleaned up and moved somewhere safer? nobody knows. actually on all of those fronts, everybody knows. this is not a he said/she said thing. there is scientific consensus on all of these matters. luckily for north carolina, the smart local press in north carolina knows that, too. look at this. wral asked the agency, mr. skvarla s agency for a citation or source for the alleged concerns about environmental risks of cleaning up and moving these coal ash ponds. the agency was unable to provide any citation. a renowned national expert on coal ash ponds at duke university says that s because there isn t one.
that man is who pat mccrory put in charge of the environment for the great state of north carolina. he did that interview with north carolina s wral the day before he took office. we asked the office today at the north carolina department of natural resources what exactly he meant in that wral interview about these people who would disagree that oil is a fossil fuel. and whether he agrees with what he described as the russian theory on this matter. we haven t heard back from the office yet so we don t know if he thinks like the world net daily guy does that the russians learned this oil secret from the nazis or if he thinks that the russians learned this magic oil theory all by themselves. we don t know why he believes it. he apparently thinks it s at least credible. he apparently thinks there s legitimate scientific disagreement about what oil is really. there isn t legitimate scientific disagreement about what oil is. there is not scientific disagreement about this matter