Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

How conflicts of interest, NGO activism undermine European bee health oversight

|

The European Union’s ban of three neonicotinoid insecticides (aimed at saving honeybees) was developed as a logical consequence of the European Food Safety Authority’s draft bee guidance document. This document, which introduced new guidelines for what could be considered as acceptable bee research field trial, set standards that, in my opinion, were so high that none of the existing bee field research could be accepted into the risk assessment process nor would any future trials ever meet the standards. In an exchange between myself and EFSA, it appears to me that the EU Authority was deceived into accepting the 2013 document under the following assumptions:
  • That there were no conflicts of interest by any of the members of the EFSA Working Group on Bee Risk Assessment.
  • That the report was produced internally by EFSA staff.
  • That the report will someday be accepted by the European Council as a legitimate document.
EFSA has become a victim of an activist intervention to skew the risk assessment process in favor of certain NGO anti-pesticide campaign objectives. This has become a clear strategy in the Activist Playbook — to plant environmental NGO-associated scientists on government panels or working groups to influence the risk assessment process. Such was the case when the Environmental Defense Fund’s activist scientist, Christopher Portier moved into the heart of the IARC glyphosate monograph. The EFSA working group on bee risk assessment had, at one time, three activists pushing unworkable guidelines for bee-related pesticide assessments.......To Read More......

Friday, January 20, 2017

Scientific Integrity is an Oxymoron




          My Commentary         
 
Are Associate Certified Entomologists Real Entomologists? - I recently participated in a conversation where it was asked if there would be any effort to certify any Associate Certified Entomologist's.  During the discussion it became apparent the consensus feeling was ACE's weren't "really" entomologists, and I think - based on what was said - that's a consensus view even among ACE's.  However, it was also agreed it was a good PR program and an upgrade for the industry.  The big knock on this was - they shouldn't be called entomologists. No alternatives were offered.  It was also noted the group certifying them was making a bunch of money. Okay, and that's bad why?

I think this kind of thinking is wrong headed, and I think it's counter productive with a bit of cognitive dissonance thrown in. Let's analyze this........
 
          Clean Air Standards         
 
Safe and healthy (not pristine) air - Federal air quality rules must be based on science – not used to stifle energy and industry.  It’s called the Clean Air Act, but it was never intended to ensure pure, pristine air. Congress wanted America to have safe, healthy air, and regulations based on solid scientific and medical studies.   The law says costs cannot be considered where human health and safety are actually at stake. But legislators also understood that efforts to bring emissions to zero are unnecessary, technologically impossible, extremely expensive, harmful to electricity generation, factory output, job creation and retention, and living standards – and thus likely to reduce human health, wellbeing and longevity......
 
          Endocrine Disruptors        
 
Do Endocrine Disruptors Really Cost Us Hundreds Of Billions? - On Monday, a paper published by the UK medical journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology made waves claiming that endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost the U.S. $340 billion - over two percent of our GDP. In other words, the U.S. is losing the equivalent of half the federal defense budget in health care costs and lost wages due to low-level exposure to chemicals in everyday items, such as plastics or lined metal food cans.  Researchers theorize that these chemicals can cause health problems by interfering with our endocrine system, which produces hormones in our bodies. But it’s not just manmade chemicals that can interact with the endocrine system—these........
 
          EPA        
 

Pruitt heads EPA: More leftist slavery ended  - Leftists' hysteria and vitriol in response to Trump winning the presidency are escalating.  Enraged, they vow to stop Trump at any cost.  It occurred to me that what has really driven the left insane, enraged and quaking in fear, is Americans free to live their lives.  Over the past eight years, Obama transformed government agencies such as the EPA into his personal hit squads.  Using these agencies, Obama incrementally repealed our constitutional and God-given freedoms, while criminalizing and silencing dissenting voices.  Leftists arrogantly assumed that Hillary would win to take Obama's slavery of Americans to unprecedented irreversible levels.........Editor's note:  See more below. RK

Pruitt vs. the EPA - Follow the mainstream media (especially the New York Times), and one concludes that all of Donald Trump’s cabinet picks are straight out of Central Casting of villainy for the MSM narratives of Republicans. Jeff Sessions, for example, supposedly is a racist segregationist who would love to join the Ku Klux Klan -- but holds back because some Klansmen smoke pot. And Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, wants us to die horrible deaths on a polluted, overheated planet. An NYT headline last December 7 read, “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.” In modern political speak, a “climate change denialist” is like a Holocaust denier. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with 17 Democratic state attorneys general, demands criminal prosecution of oil executives and scientists that do not acknowledge the view of climate change as outlined in the Democratic Party platform. According to the Times........ Editor's note:  See more below. RK

Conservatives Must Rally Behind Scott Pruitt for EPA - Environmental groups have declared war against Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Don’t be surprised if Mr. Pruitt’s nomination hearing this week degenerates into a three-ring circus of obnoxious and disruptive Big Green antics, the new M.O. of the left these days.

Pruitt’s nomination and the case brought against him by the Sierra Club and others have little to do with Mr. Pruitt — whose qualifications for the job having served as two state attorney general in Oklahoma are virtually unchallengeable. What is going on here is the clashing of two opposite philosophies of left and right on how best to safeguard our air and water and our federal lands and what the greens now call “the climate.” .......Editor's note:  See more below. RK

EPA Nominee: ‘I Do Not Believe That Climate Change Is a Hoax’ - Environmental Protection Agency nominee Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said Wednesday that he does not believe climate change is a hoax.  “I do not believe that climate change is a hoax,” Pruitt said under questioning from Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).........Similarly, Interior Secretary nominee Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday that he did not believe climate change was “a hoax.”.....

My Take - I've been told by someone who personally knows the two guys who have headed up the EPA and Energy Dept. transition teams and he assured me their views are in total harmony with mine.  I wonder how this happened, and I really wonder how anyone can believe climate change isn't a hoax.  I'm beginning to wonder what other stupid things these people believe.  It might end up business as usual.  This is really disappointing.

 
Judge Gives EPA Until July to Identify Job Losses from Regulations - A federal judge in West Virginia has given the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) less than seven months to review whether its Obama-era policies directly led to job losses in the coal industry, according to an order issued Wednesday.  As The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register reported, U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey rebuked the agency for failing to perform such reporting requirements in the past:"EPA can recommend amendments to Congress if it feels strongly enough, but EPA's clear reticence to comply, coupled with eight years of refusal to comply — even in the face of congressional and public pressure — with the Clean Air Act, justifies an injunction detailed enough to ensure compliance.""It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it," he continued........
 
 

         Global Warming        
 
 
The Global Warming Smoking Gun - To err is human, but to really foul up you need a computer. The global warming narrative is straightforward. Carbon dioxide, (CO2), released by burning coal, oil and natural gas, is increasing in the atmosphere. The increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm. The warming will create numerous bad effects. Therefore, we must reduce the emissions of CO2 by switching to green energy such as windmills, solar power and crops that can be burned for energy........
 
Trump Meets With Princeton Physicist Who Says CO2 Is Good For Us - William Happer: The Truth About Greenhouse Gases ......
 
          Logical Fallacy of the Week        
 
Over the course of our lives we will engage in discussions where we know we're right but can't prove why the other person's argument is wrong.  Usually that's because their argument is based on one or more logical fallacies. 
 
"A logical fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness.  These are commonly used styles of argument in convincing people, where the focus is on communication and results rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be used whether the point being advanced is correct or not."
 
There are about 140 logical fallacies and a great many of them are incomprehensible.  In truth there are only about twenty five to fifty or so worth paying attention to.  Each week we will feature these fallacies.  It's important to know what to think factually, but it's more important to know how to think.  This week's logical fallacy is:  "Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity."
 
          Scientific Integrity is an Oxymoron        
 
Piltdown Man evolution hoax reminds us about danger of confirmation bias - Rivalry, jealously, con artistry, practical jokes, grand scale bias, and patriotism compounded by World War I era geopolitics. we’re not talking about an episode of the PBS drama Downton Abbey, a daily soap opera or even a classic old film–this is the background story about the discovery of Piltdown Man, perhaps the most notorious hoax in the history of modern science. It was a dark event, and has been relegated to the footnotes of history books. But occasionally the story surfaces, as it did last year when DNA extracted from bones revealed new information on how the hoax was orchestrated.........

Thursday, January 19, 2017

EPA Nominee: ‘I Do Not Believe That Climate Change Is a Hoax’

By Melanie Hunter | January 18, 2017

Environmental Protection Agency nominee Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said Wednesday that he does not believe climate change is a hoax.  “I do not believe that climate change is a hoax,” Pruitt said under questioning from Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).........Similarly, Interior Secretary nominee Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday that he did not believe climate change was “a hoax.”.....To Read More....


Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Conservatives Must Rally Behind Scott Pruitt for EPA

What’s worked in the Sooner State will work everywhere.

Stephen Moore @ American Spectator

Environmental groups have declared war against Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Don’t be surprised if Mr. Pruitt’s nomination hearing this week degenerates into a three-ring circus of obnoxious and disruptive Big Green antics, the new M.O. of the left these days.

Pruitt’s nomination and the case brought against him by the Sierra Club and others have little to do with Mr. Pruitt — whose qualifications for the job having served as two state attorney general in Oklahoma are virtually unchallengeable. What is going on here is the clashing of two opposite philosophies of left and right on how best to safeguard our air and water and our federal lands and what the greens now call “the climate.”

The green belief is that the future of the planet depends on halting all economic projects if they pose the slightest risk to the environment. This zero tolerance lunacy doesn’t balance the economy and ecology, but subjugates‎ jobs and development to environmental purity.

We have seen this position in the extreme in recent years with green groups opposing all fossil fuel development in America under the “leave it in the ground” campaign. That is, no drilling, no mining, no oil or gas development — and certainly no coal. This strategy has already put tens of thousands of American coal miners out of jobs (even as China and India build new coal plants every week) and would put nearly 10 million Americans in oil and gas and related occupations out of jobs.

To the climate change lobby, this is a small price to pay. Once upon a time the left touted no net loss of jobs due to “green jobs,” but those have proven to be a fantasy and it turns out the solar panels are mostly made in China. A lot of good that does the out of work coal miners in West Virginia and Wyoming.
Mr. Pruitt represents a different mindset. He tells me that good environmental policy “can mean a cleaner environment with increased, not reduced economic production.” In other words, a win-win for nature and workers. It may seem pie in the sky, but it’s worked in Oklahoma where oil and gas production surged over the last decade while emissions of pollutants in the Sooner State fell. Pruitt was the attorney general when all of this happened. Yet he is tagged as pro-industry and anti-environment.

Oklahoma was no aberration. Another big energy producing state also doubled oil and gas output while cleaning up the air — with reductions in carbon monoxide, sulfur, lead and other pollutants.

Mr. Pruitt is being used by the radical greens as a piñata. The New York Times says he is unqualified because he dares question the science on global warming. He has thousands of scientists on his side. Big Green wants to derail his nomination not because he is a threat to the environment but because his philosophy is anathema to theirs. They will insist that the head of the EPA must subscribe to their religion on climate change while opposing all fossil fuel production and all development of our tens of millions of acres of federal lands.

That has been the case for eight years with EPA rules becoming a crushing burden on American small businesses and manufacturers. The EPA is now one of America’s leading job killers. It exports jobs to China, India, and Mexico where environmental protections are much worse and carbon emissions are much higher.

Pruitt wants a pro-jobs, pro-environment EPA. The left doesn’t. He wants states to have more control of their resources. The left doesn’t. Mr. Pruitt could be the best head of EPA ever, proving that free markets can lead to a safer environment. That’s what really terrifies the left
.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Are Associate Certified Entomologists Real Entomologists?

By Rich Kozlovich

I recently participated in a conversation where it was asked if there would be any effort to certify any Associate Certified Entomologist's.  During the discussion it became apparent the consensus feeling was ACE's weren't "really" entomologists, and I think - based on what was said - that's a consensus view even among ACE's.

However, it was also agreed it was a good PR program and an upgrade for the industry.  The big knock on this was - they shouldn't be called entomologists. No alternatives were offered.  It was also noted the group certifying them was making a bunch of money. Okay, and that's bad why?

I think this kind of thinking is wrong headed, and I think it's counter productive with a bit of cognitive dissonance thrown in. Let's analyze this.

To become a university trained entomologist one goes to class, reads books, attends lectures and takes tests.  And if those tests are passed some legitimate recognized certifying authority - such as a university - says they're an entomologist.

The Associate Certified Entomologist program is run by the ESA Certification Corporation as a benefit for "practicing pest control professionals" with  "a minimum of 5 years of verifiable pest management experience in the United States as proven by a resume, CV, or attestation of employment from your employer. The ability to take and pass an online test of your knowledge of structural pest control, two letters of professional reference. These should be from current or former employers, major clients, professional colleagues, or others who can speak to your professionalism, entomological knowledge, and your ethical standards.  Furthermore "there is no need for an advanced degree to participate, just a solid grasp of the practical aspects of applied entomology."

There's other stuff also, but that's basically it.

So it seems clear becoming an Associate Certified Entomologist requires one to read books, attend lectures and take tests, because in order to become licensed in their state they did just that, and then take another test overseen by the certifying authority - in this case the ESA Certification Corporation.

Did I get that right?

So if I got that right I think it's appropriate to ask: What's the big difference between someone certified as an entomologist by a university or by the ESA Certification Corporation? 

Well, it would appear the ACE applicant had to have real world experience and have his character attested to by others in the pest control industry. Did anyone see that as a requirement for any university accredited entomologists? Which is more? Which is better? And no one is claiming this corporation is illegitimate, so that's not an argument against claiming they're not entomologists.

Let's take a look at public education and higher education. 

The farthest back I can find where public education became available in the Western world goes back to 1600's Scotland.  And the goal of that system was to create responsible, educated, Christian citizens.  Well, that's clearly not the goal any longer.  Public education isn't turning out responsible, educated or Christian citizens.  In point of fact - if these public schools were manufacturing nuts and bolts they would be rejected at the loading dock as defective.

Higher education was formed along the same lines:  To develop a "process" that would form young people's minds and create a world view and a way of thinking for future leaders for the benefit of society.  Well, that's clearly been corrupted to the point they're turning out some of the most disruptive and destructive forces against civilized behavior the world has ever seen.  Young, passionate, ill informed, uninformed and stunningly stupid!  Moonbats and snowflakes!

We've been flimflamed!  Society has been scammed by "education" charlatans for so long we find it too painful to recognize we're been conned, hornswoggled, deceived, duped and swindled - at all levels of education - and because society has come to embrace the con - society rejects any evidence showing just how badly we've become slaves to the power of these charlatans. 

Having gone through "the process" of higher education isn't a winning argument.   It's time we got over this intellectual snobbery!

My wife used to be a realtor, which required her to take a test, which a great many don't pass the first and even second time out, including those who went to college for it. My wife passed it the first time by taking two year college course that was condensed into a six week five hours a night class.

I had pointed this out to the group saying if we really wanted to we could take a university course on entomology and condense it down into a few weeks. Some laughed! Well, the fact of the matter is college students spend a whole lot of time doing things other than studying entomology.  We just need to get rid of these "other" things to create a credible, concentrated course on urban entomology. 

We are what we do, and if someone is recognized as an entomologist by a legitimate certifying authority - then that person is an entomologist.

During the conversation it was noted, with a tiny bit of distaste, one of the nation's leading pest control companies was planning an getting thousands of their technicians certified as ACE's.  I say good for them. 

Let's face it - do we believe this is upgrading the industry?  If we really believe that - and I do - then we need to act like we believe it, and not disparage that accreditation.  If we think it's a joke why should the public think differently. Worse yet - if we think it's a joke why should the bureaucrats, politicians and activists we deal with think differently?

What I would like to see is some state university offer an abbreviated condensed certifiable urban entomology course for pest controllers who've been in the industry for five years, and I would like to see the state associations and our national association get on board with that.

 It can be done!

All it takes is the guts to row against the tide and the fortitude to stick it out. Then it will become an accepted reality - a reality that will be a wonderful continuing upgrade for our industry.  In the meanwhile let's stop diminishing who we are and what we do. 

Our adversaries don't need any help from us.

Piltdown Man evolution hoax reminds us about danger of confirmation bias

|

Rivalry, jealously, con artistry, practical jokes, grand scale bias, and patriotism compounded by World War I era geopolitics. we’re not talking about an episode of the PBS drama Downton Abbey, a daily soap opera or even a classic old film–this is the background story about the discovery of Piltdown Man, perhaps the most notorious hoax in the history of modern science. It was a dark event, and has been relegated to the footnotes of history books. But occasionally the story surfaces, as it did last year when DNA extracted from bones revealed new information on how the hoax was orchestrated........To Read More....

Do Endocrine Disruptors Really Cost Us Hundreds Of Billions?

By Joseph Perrone — October 20, 2016  

On Monday, a paper published by the UK medical journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology made waves claiming that endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost the U.S. $340 billion - over two percent of our GDP. In other words, the U.S. is losing the equivalent of half the federal defense budget in health care costs and lost wages due to low-level exposure to chemicals in everyday items, such as plastics or lined metal food cans.

Researchers theorize that these chemicals can cause health problems by interfering with our endocrine system, which produces hormones in our bodies. But it’s not just manmade chemicals that can interact with the endocrine system—these........To Read More....

Pruitt heads EPA: More leftist slavery ended

Pruitt vs. the EPA

By William L. Anderson January 15, 2017

Follow the mainstream media (especially the New York Times), and one concludes that all of Donald Trump’s cabinet picks are straight out of Central Casting of villainy for the MSM narratives of Republicans. Jeff Sessions, for example, supposedly is a racist segregationist who would love to join the Ku Klux Klan -- but holds back because some Klansmen smoke pot. And Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, wants us to die horrible deaths on a polluted, overheated planet. An NYT headline last December 7 read, “Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.” In modern political speak, a “climate change denialist” is like a Holocaust denier. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with 17 Democratic state attorneys general, demands criminal prosecution of oil executives and scientists that do not acknowledge the view of climate change as outlined in the Democratic Party platform. According to the Times........ To Read More.....

The Global Warming Smoking Gun

To err is human, but to really foul up you need a computer.

Norman Rogers

The global warming narrative is straightforward. Carbon dioxide, (CO2), released by burning coal, oil and natural gas, is increasing in the atmosphere. The increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm. The warming will create numerous bad effects. Therefore, we must reduce the emissions of CO2 by switching to green energy such as windmills, solar power and crops that can be burned for energy.

The global warming idea has caught on, at least in left-leaning circles. Millions of people believe that global warming is solid science. If you doubt the global warming idea, you will be accused of not believing in science. According to the promoters of global warming, doubters are like the people who put Galileo on trial, or the people who think the Earth is flat. The global warming narrative consists of assertions, supposedly based on science, and proposed actions that will avert the (purported) disaster. The narrative is very fragile and is susceptible to collapse if the assertions or proposed actions are faulty......... More

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Safe and healthy (not pristine) air

Federal air quality rules must be based on science – not used to stifle energy and industry
 
Paul Driessen
 
It’s called the Clean Air Act, but it was never intended to ensure pure, pristine air. Congress wanted America to have safe, healthy air, and regulations based on solid scientific and medical studies.
 
The law says costs cannot be considered where human health and safety are actually at stake. But legislators also understood that efforts to bring emissions to zero are unnecessary, technologically impossible, extremely expensive, harmful to electricity generation, factory output, job creation and retention, and living standards – and thus likely to reduce human health, wellbeing and longevity.
 
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency ignored these facts and employed highly dubious analyses to justify stringent new emission standards that impose enormous costs for no health benefits. The new Congress and Trump Administration must now restore integrity, rigor and balance to the process.
 
A good place to begin is with EPA’s rules for fine particulates: PM2.5, soot particles smaller than 2.5 microns (a fraction of the size of pollen and mold spores). EPA claims reducing PM2.5 emissions from power plants, factories, refineries, petrochemical plants, cars, light trucks, and diesel-powered vehicles and heavy equipment will save countless lives. In fact, it says, nearly all the (supposed) benefits from its Clean Power Plan and other recent rules are actually “ancillary benefits” from reducing PM2.5 levels.
 
Premature mortality is “associated with” fine particle pollution “at the lowest levels measured,” Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said. “There is no level at which premature death does not occur.” If we could further reduce particulate pollution, previous Obama EPA chief Lisa Jackson told Congress, it would be like “finding a cure for cancer” – hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
These assertions have no basis in reality. Even EPA’s own studies show they are predicated on two things: epidemiological analyses that count deaths within normal variations in death rates and attribute them to soot emissions; and experiments that unethically exposed humans to PM2.5 concentrations at levels which EPA says cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancer and people “dying sooner than they should.”
The agency’s air pollution epidemiological studies are compromised by uncontrollable “confounding factors.” No data exist on actual individual exposure levels, so researchers cannot reliably attribute specific deaths to particulates, emergency room physician John Dunn explains. Moreover, PM2.5 particles emitted by vehicles, power plants and factories cannot be separated from particles from volcanoes, forest fires, construction projects, dust storms, agricultural activities, and even cigarettes that send hundreds of times more tiny particles into lungs than what EPA says is lethal if they come from sources it regulates.
Nor does a death certificate determine whether a death was caused by airborne particles – or by viruses, bacteria, dietary and exercise habits, obesity, smoking, diabetes, cold weather or countless other factors.
 
If particulates are a short-term cause of death, there should be a clear association between bad air and deaths within clusters of similar areas, and effects should be consistent across clusters, notes statistician Stan Young in discussing causation versus association.  However, a recent re-analysis of 1969-1974 data from 533 US counties confirmed the previous conclusion: improved air quality did not reduce mortality.
 
Similarly, in 2002, Canadian forest fires sent massive amounts of smoke (composed largely of PM2.5 particles) into Boston and New York City. EPA doctrine says deaths should have shot up, but they did not. 2008 forest fires in California engulfed Los Angeles in smoke and PM2.5 soot, but again deaths did not increase. In fact, they were below normal as soot levels soared during the fires.
 
EPA has not proposed a plausible medical explanation to support its claim that super-tiny particles cause multiple diseases and kill people by getting into their lungs or bloodstreams. It just counts deaths during arbitrarily chosen intervals of days, and says differences in the number dying in relation to air pollution levels represents “premature” deaths – rather than the fact that more people die on some days than others.
 
People certainly did die during some atmospheric inversions that trapped large quantities of airborne chemicals in urban areas like London in 1952. However those pollutants have been dramatically reduced in America’s air. For example, since 1970 US cars have reduced tailpipe pollutants by 99% and coal-fired power plants have eliminated over 90% of their particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.
 
EPA thus sponsored 20 years of lab experiments that exposed human test subjects to high air pollution levels. That raises legal, ethical and scientific problems. US laws, the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Accords and EPA Rule 1000.17 make it unethical or illegal to conduct toxicity experiments on humans.
 
In addition, researchers failed to advise volunteers that EPA claims the pollution they were going to breathe is toxic, carcinogenic and deadly. Moreover, many of the human guinea pigs were elderly, asthmatics, diabetics, people with heart disease and even children – the very people EPA claims are at greatest risk and most susceptible to getting sick or dying from the pollutants volunteers would breathe.
 
Finally, test subjects were exposed to eight, thirty or even sixty times more particulates per volume of inhaled air – for varying periods of time: up to two hours – than they would breathe outdoors during routine physical activities. And yet, they did not get seriously ill or die. That raises important questions:
 
* If PM2.5 particulates are dangerous or lethal when emitted by factories or vehicles, and there is no safe threshold – how can those same pollutants be harmless to people who were intentionally administered pollution many times higher, and for longer periods, than they would encounter in their daily lives? Why didn’t those test subjects have seizures, develop lung, cardiac or cancer problems, or die?
 
* If they did not, how can EPA say there is no safe level, all PM2.5 particulates are toxic, its regulations are saving countless lives, and regulatory benefits vastly outweigh their multi-billion-dollar annual costs?
 
Simply put, there is no basis for these claims – or for the Obama EPA’s war on fossil fuels and factories.
 
America’s air is healthy and safe. EPA’s PM2.5 emission standards and regulations are clearly based on bald assertions, rank conjecture, epidemiological studies that provide no scientific support for the agency, and human testing that actually proves small particulates pose no toxic or lethal risk to risk to human health, even at levels dozens of time higher than what EPA claims are dangerous or lethal in outdoor air.
 
Any computer models based on these assertions and studies are thus garbage in-garbage out game playing that provide no valid basis for claims about lives saved or regulatory benefits exceeding costs.
 
(A thorough analysis of this untenable situation can be found in JunkScience.com director Steve Milloy’s new book, Scare Pollution: Why and how to fix the EPA, which documents the ways EPA uses deceptive tactics to frighten people into believing the air they breathe is likely to sicken or kill them.)
 
The incoming Trump EPA needs to conduct its own internal review of existing agency PM2.5 claims, documents, emission levels and regulations – and fund an independent review by respected medical experts – to determine whether they are based on honest, replicable science. If they are not, everything based on the fraudulent PM2.5 pollution narrative should be subjected to a total do-over.
 
While all that is being done, EPA should suspend implementation of all policies, guidelines and rules based on the scheme. It must also inform legislators, journalists and citizens about the facts – and clearly and vigorously address inevitable environmentalist objections and denunciations.
 
The new EPA and Congress should also require that all past, current and future researchers make their raw data and methodologies available for outside peer review. They should stop funding activist groups that have engaged in collusive lawsuits or rubberstamped EPA actions, including the American Lung Association. Last, they should fully reform the agency’s supervisory panels, board of scientific counselors and Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) – and repopulate them with experts who do not have government grant or other conflicts, and will bring integrity and rigor to the scientific process.
 
These steps will help make EPA credible and accountable, and its actions based on solid science.
 
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
 

Saturday, January 14, 2017

GREEN NOTES

          My Commentary         

Battling Bad Science! - Over a lifetime of reading and pontificating about everything I have come to some very basic conclusions about ....everything. One of the conclusions I arrived at many years ago is that everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Another conclusion that I came to is that everything is the basics. Those two kind of go hand in hand. If it is too complicated it probably isn't true, and must be looked at very carefully before being accepted. If it defies what we see in life it probably isn't true. And claims by scientists are very often so complicated that most of us, including other scientists, have trouble understanding them....and very often defy reality. I recommend reading Ecological Sanity by Claus and Bolander.......

          Oh California!!!!!!!           
 
A Drought of Sanity in California  -The ink was hardly dry on the Secretarial Order from Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell blaming California’s drought on global warming that rain and snow swept across the state. San Francisco International Airport was forced to cancel flights and there were blizzard warnings for Lake Tahoe.   The Los Angeles Times warned breathlessly of a winter war footing. San Francisco, the home of a million companies cashing in on environmental panics, received 130% of average rainfall. Sacramento, where terrible ideas from San Francisco go to become law under a Democratic supermajority, is at 160%........

My Take - It must be nice being a member of the Church of the Warming Globe because then you know the reason for 'everything'!!!!  Too much snow, too little snow, too much rain, too little rain, terrorism, acne....oh, just pick something ..... actually anything....and it's caused by global warming. It must really give them a warming and fuzzy feeling to be so well informed.  Or is it ignorance is bliss?  But ignorance is at least a legitimate excuse because ignorance is the natural state.  We're all ignorant about a huge number of things because there's so much out there to know.  Ignorance means we simply don't know, but that can be fixed by learning.  But stupid is different, at least for those with reasonable intelligence, because it means they don't want to know and that kind of stupid can't be fixed.  Then we have Al Gore as the High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe.   But he's not stupid.....just corrupt!

            Cancer           

It's Time To Stop Using Simplistic Hazard Classifications For Carcinogen Claims - The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was founded with a noble goal - to put an end to environmental claims based on weak observational anecdotes, like Rachel Carson claiming that she knew people who sprayed DDT in their basement and died (1) or that cranberries were going to poison everyone.

Yet in recent years they have become complicit in just that. Their mission is to identify the causes of cancer, known as hazard identification, and not make suggestions about the degree to which each carcinogen presents a risk to public health, yet they have begun to do that all of the time. When they bizarrely claimed that eating sausage was as hazardous as smoking (a Group 1 carcinogen), they damaged their credibility with the public likely beyond repair. And I noted it was because they routinely use the term "risk" - 38 times just in their Q&A on meat. Cell phones, glyphosate, you name it and this has become routine for them. How did it come to be? In last year's "IARC: Diesel Exhaust & Lung Cancer", based on their 2012 assessment of diesel exhaust, I analyzed how IARC intentionally chose working group members that were certain to make biased conclusions. A big part of the reason, I noted, was that Dr. Chris Portier, whose title was officially Chairman of the IARC Working Group, had a secret title - consultant for Environmental Defense Fund........

          Colony Collapse Disorder         

Buzz Kill: How the Sierra Club uses scare tactics about bee health and twists the science to raise money - The Sierra Club, founded by John Muir in 1892 to support wilderness outings and conservation in the American west, is now on a different campaign: scaring the bejeebies out of people to raise money. The once venerable organization, once known for its eco-pragmatism, is twisting the science about bees and pesticides. Literally hundreds of thousands of people who have supported one green organization or event in recent years opened their mailboxes in the past few months to find a scare letter of epic proportions written by Sierra’s executive director Michael Brune:........In a recent series of letters sent out this fall as part of this ongoing multi-year fund-raising effort, Brune makes the case that neonics are behind Colony Collapse Disorder and responsible for a 44 percent decline in bee populations:........Deconstructing Sierra Club’s claims..........

          Endangered Species         

Shades of the Old Soviet Union - "Red" Wolf Acolytes of a Dying Ideology  - At the end of this short article you will find a “news” item from Arkansas State University. To say that I found it simultaneously sad and reprehensible would be an understatement. As someone that attended high school in the 1950’s it brought back memories about how the Soviet Union was taking children from their parents and indoctrinating them in radical ideas.  The fact that there were incidents after incidents reported of the children “turning in” their parents for simply listening to the radio or even just to make the child look good to his or her “government” parents deeply impressed us kids as we were mostly from happy families with loving parents. I look at that introductory photo below and a real chill goes down my spine as I see what those “happy” Soviet children must have looked like......

         Endocrine Disruptors            

Nature editorial ‘exploits public anxiety’ on endocrine disruptors - In December 2016, the European Union member states will vote on proposed legislation that would mandate an ambitious program to identify and regulate “endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment. On November 22, the journal Nature carried an editorial entitled “Stand firm on hormone disruptors” by NYU pediatrician Leonardo Trasande. Rather than laying out the scientific issues relevant to consideration of the problem of chemicals in the environment and their effects on the general population, the editorial indulges in far-reaching speculation.......

          Energy         

The $3.5 Trillion Fracking Economy Is About To Get A Lot Bigger - OPEC’s Nightmare Scenario: U.S. Frackers Are Winning The Oil War.......

          EPA          
 
Obama's EPA 'Does Not Verify the Accuracy or Science' On Its Own Blog - Restoring science to its "rightful place"?  In President Obama's first inaugural address in January 2009, he declared, rather grandly, "We'll restore science to its rightful place..." The president has often prided himself on his devotion to science, and earlier this year the White House posted "100 Examples of Putting Science in Its Rightful Place" on its blog. This emphasis on the primacy of science is what makes the editor's note attached to many of the posts on the EPA's official blog eight years in to the Obama administration so curious: ""EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog....


Setting the Record Straight on Scott Pruitt - Trump’s nominee to head the EPA will protect the environment, not out-of-control bureaucrats. The ink had not dried on Scott Pruitt’s nomination to head the EPA before many in the media labeled him a “climate denier.” Like most cases of slander, this one rested on the flimsiest of reeds — lines from an op-ed I co-authored with Attorney General Pruitt and published in May at National Review Online under the title “The Climate-Change Gang.”  The column is still available for all to read and should speak for itself, but some attacks should not go unrebutted. So let’s set the record straight.........

         Genetically Modified Organisms        

UN Biodiversity Meeting Supports Gene Drives, Rejects Environmentalists - The UN Convention on Biodiversity meeting - typically dominated by environmental activists lobbying bloated quasi-world-government committees - recently met in Cancún and when we weren't talking about their enjoyment of catered dinners and $600 a night rooms in a resort town completely lacking in biodiversity, we were talking about the other hypocrisy in the environmental movement; claiming they care about science when they really want to ban all of it.  In this case — synthetic biology. Right now, activists have limited themselves to seeking bans on Genetically Modified Organisms - GMOs - but those are a precise legal term for one product. Mutagenesis and lots of other biological manipulation from 50 years ago are still allowed to be called "Organic" and have gotten a free pass......
          Global Warming         

2016’s biggest loser: Big Green  - The day after the presidential elections the executive director of the Sierra Club glumly called the Donald Trump victory “deeply disturbing for the nation and the planet.” Well, yes, if you’re a climate change alarmist who hates fossil fuels, you’re in for a bad four and maybe eight years.

Reality-based climate forecasting - These days, even shipwreck museums showcase evidence of climate change. After diving recently among Key West’s fabled ship-destroying barrier reefs, I immersed myself in exhibits from the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, the fabled Spanish galleon that foundered during a ferocious hurricane in 1622. The Mel Fisher Maritime Museum now houses many of the gold, silver, emeralds and artifacts that Mel and Deo Fisher’s archeological team recovered after finding the wreck in 1985. Also featured prominently in the museum is the wreck of a British slave ship, the Henrietta Marie It sank in a hurricane off Key West in 1700, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica, to be sold as slaves.........

Green/Left Double Standard - Dr. Susan Crockford (email: scrock@uvic.ca) has written a well-informed and approachable book about polar bears.  She has no time for the usual Warmist scare about the bears being "endangered". The book has only just been released but the Warmists are already on the case.  A review by someone called "Eli" on Amazon reads:
"Caveat emptor: the author's vague self-description as "a professional zoologist who has studied polar bear ecology and evolution for more than 20 years" appears intended to mask the facts that her PhD and professional work are in the field of canine archaeology, and that she has no formal training or expertise in polar bear science. Up to you to decide whether she's the best source of information for you and your kids on polar bear facts and myths."
I would love to know who Eli is.  I want to ask him whether tobacco-grower Al Gore's speeches about global warming should be disregarded because Al's qualifications are in divinity and social science. 
 
El Niño Does Not Mean The End Of The ‘Pause’ - ‘Knives Sticking Out Of My Back’: Judith Curry On Why She Left Academia

Image result for Josh cartoon warming pause

 

Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold - In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.  Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.  “Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.......

 The next great sucking sound -  President-Elect Trump has pierced the veils surrounding the holy of holies wherein reside the eco-dogmatists of the EPA and the U.N. and promises the rightful return of respect to the essence of scientific research…skepticism.  In 1746, philosopher Denis Diderot penned, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.”  Billions of taxpayer monies have been spent by our progressively bent government and its crony supplicants to turn that concept on its head.  Mass media acolytes wordsmithed “skeptic” into a dirty word.  Emulating the harsh but masterful government propaganda machine of 1930s Germany, they successfully convinced much of the public and ruling class that the life-sustaining trace gas, carbon dioxide, is an earth-destroying pollutant.   Federal agencies promoted the concept and dispensed billions of dollars in lavishly funding those scientists and commercial interests willing to pervert the term “climate change,” a constant feature of geohistory, into a man-made threat and a money-making commercial enterprise......next great sucking sound should be that of the Washington, D.C. swamp being drained and taking away the accumulated detritus of pseudo-science coopted in the service of false dogma and political favoritism, with the subsequent restoration of “skepticism” to its place as a benchmark for the advancement of scientific knowledge.......

The End Of Germany’s Energiewende? - Rex Tillerson Says Climate Science 'Inconclusive', California Is Singing In The Rain, Climate Alarmists Make Fools Of Themselves, Heavy Rain And Snow End California’s 5-Year Drought....

         Pesticides         

The Phosphine Accident – A Tragic Chemistry Lesson - We routinely write about phony chemical scares. Thanks to know-nothings, groups with agendas, and the press, the mere mention of BPA, which is about as close to harmless as chemicals get, sends people into a frenzy. Some will go to great lengths to avoid it, such as refusing to touch cash register receipts. But, there is nothing phony about phosphine—the gas that recently killed four children in Texas. Phosphine is a real poison and a very potent one at that. Most chemists will go their entire careers without ever using it......

How Can Pesticides Be Safe? Many people may find it difficult to imagine how a pesticide could ever be safe. To understand how that is possible, it is helpful to make the comparison with something more familiar: electricity. It is hard to envision modern life without electricity. As much as we enjoy and need this source of energy, it involves some hazards. Electricity can, and sometimes does, cause injury or death..........

Missouri Senator to Propose Pesticide Spraying Bill, Again - Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) says she will refile a bill to overturn a federal court decision on spraying pesticides over water  Lawmakers have tried to change the requirements since 2011

          Scientific Integrity is an Oxymoron         
 
If peer review were a drug, it would never get on the market - Hundreds of thousands of papers are published each year in the medical literature, and each year the number of papers published continues to grow. Publication in a “peer-review” journal is a core requirement for advancement in one’s career as a scientist, and since quality is often hard to judge, quantity (i.e., number of papers published) is a widely used metric.  The peer review system is supposed to winnow out work that is not suitable for publication. The system relies on “peers,” or experts, to examine a paper prior to publication, critique it, and offer a recommendation either for or against publication. In the scientific community, it is widely recognized that, like any system that depends on human beings, the peer review system is not perfect. Reviewers are expected to donate their time, and it can take several hours to critically evaluate a paper........


 

A Drought of Sanity in California

Posted by Daniel Greenfield Thursday, January 12, 2017 6 Comments @ The Sultan Knish Blog

The ink was hardly dry on the Secretarial Order from Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell blaming California’s drought on global warming that rain and snow swept across the state. San Francisco International Airport was forced to cancel flights and there were blizzard warnings for Lake Tahoe.

The Los Angeles Times warned breathlessly of a winter war footing. San Francisco, the home of a million companies cashing in on environmental panics, received 130% of average rainfall. Sacramento, where terrible ideas from San Francisco go to become law under a Democratic supermajority, is at 160%.

Governor Jerry Brown had signed an executive order last year making temporary drought restrictions all but permanent. “Drought is becoming a regular occurrence,” Executive Order B-37-16 stated. Then the proposal to "Make Conservation a California Way of Life" had made a big splash among bureaucrats.

"California is currently in the grips of an extreme drought with record low precipitation," it gloomily began. Then the Sacramento River flooded, the downtown rainfall record was broken and copies of the report came in handy as makeshift umbrellas by scurrying staffers. So there was nothing left to do but blame Global Warming.

If the rain doesn’t fall, that’s Global Warming. If it does fall, that too is Global Warming. The moonbeam left has traded in God for Global Warming as its universal answer to everything.

After years of predicting that California’s future would be a barren desert, the predictions have been slightly revised. California is now doomed to alternate between droughts and storms. And if it rains cats and dogs over Death Valley, we will be told that Global Warming causes canine and feline precipitation and that unless we agree to give Al Gore more money, we’re doomed to be brained by falling felines. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown believes in Global Warming the way that the followers of his old pal, Jim Jones, believed in drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. He’s even prepared to put his satellites where his brain is.

"We've got the scientists, we've got the lawyers and we're ready to fight," Brown ranted to the American Geophysical Union. "If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite."

Anyone who doubts that Governor Moonbeam can launch his own satellite ought to take a close look at how well high-speed rail is coming along. After being backed by Obama’s stimulus plan in ’09, the first and easiest leg of it has lately been delayed by four years. The stimulus money has to be spent by next year and there’s no way to pay for any of the rest of it except with more global warming taxes.

At this rate, the magic anti-Trump satellite would cost $100 billion and be ready to go by 2054.

But that’s pocket change considering how much money California has already spent and lost on Governor Moonbeam’s obsession with the Great Green Apocalypse.

Brown demanded that Obama institute a permanent ban on offshore drilling. Offshore drilling might even produce enough money to fund his high-speed rail obsession. But math and Moonbeam have never been on speaking terms. He doesn’t have policies. He has dreams.

"My own belief is that California has a unique place on the planet. It's been a place of dreams. We can pursue a path of benign energy," he once said.

The drought has allowed Brown to pursue his dreams. Global Warming is a crisis in search of a disaster. Warmunists struggle to tether it to any natural or unnatural disaster from random hurricanes to the civil war in Syria.

An op-ed at the Los Angeles Times asked readers to see, “the devastation of climate change in the ruins of Aleppo.” It makes the fashionable claim that the war wasn’t caused by Sunni-Shiite hostilities but by, what else, drought. Syria has apparently been suffering from the “worst drought in nine centuries.”

Who knew that detailed rainfall records had been kept in Syria for nearly a thousand years?

The civil war in Syria might be explained by the 900 year drought, but what about the wars in Yemen, Libya, the Sinai, Mali and countless other places as part of the Arab Spring? Was there a drought in the eighties during the last Sunni-Shiite civil war in Syria between Assad Sr. and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Or during any of the countless wars that have been taking place in the area for thousands of years?

California’s current drought is said to be the worst in 1,200 years. Others insist it’s merely the worst in 500 years.

Who knew that hunter-gatherers without a written language could keep such careful records?

But it’s all about how you define “drought”. The Great Drought of the 1860s was a good deal worse in lack of rain and in the devastating impact on California. There were drier years far more recently than 1,200 years ago. And there wasn’t a whole lot of industry in California in the 1860s to blame it on.

To call this the worst drought in 150 years, never mind 1,200 or 12 billion years, you have to customize the definition of “drought” to make it so. Like so much of Warmunism, you draw the target around the arrow. And once you have your crisis, then you can use alarmism to make a massive power grab.

"I think this almost has to be at the level of a crusade," Governor Brown declared.

Now Brown’s crusade is all wet. But Warmunist alarmism recovers quickly every time the world
doesn’t end at the stroke of midnight. In the seventies, environmentalists were promoting Paul Ehrlich’s claims that 65 million Americans would starve to death a decade later. At the British Institute for Biology, he predicted that, “England will not exist in the year 2000”. Today Ehrlich, the president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, is predicting that we’ll soon have to turn to cannibalism.

If you doubt any of this, you must hate science.

Later the panic switched to predicting an ice age. The various doomsday scenarios under the umbrella of “climate change” have kept rotating in and out like bad actors on a cheap stage.

A 2003 DOD report envisioned flooding could producing an inland sea in California. Recently the National Research Council report, sponsored in part by California, warned that San Francisco International Airport could be flooded in a few decades. The worst drought in 12 billion years made for some better headlines because the drought, unlike most of the other scenarios, actually existed. But before long the Green Apocalypse crowd will be predicting a California buried under mountains of ice.

Natural disasters are the drama that lubricates a corrupt government industry which deprives ordinary people of water, food, heating and life out of a combination of ideological hostility to technology and the flow of money to special interests in the business of saving the planet from a manufactured crisis.

The California state budget approaches $180 billion. That’s a 5% increase in only one year. But being an “international leader” in fighting “climate change” doesn’t come cheap. The new budget grabs even more cap-and-trade power to be spent on Big Green Business and reinforces the illegal tax for auctioning off “pollution” allowances. And then there’s e money for the high-speed rail to nowhere.

None of this will stop droughts or storms. But it will move money to the right people. The ones, like Al Gore, living in luxury condos in San Francisco about to be flooded by the Great Green Apocalypse that never comes. And it’s always been about the money. Everything else is theater. Rain or sun, flood or drought, the scripts get rewritten, the bills get passed and the Global Warming show goes on.

(This article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine)