Tom Harris from Ottawa Canada, is eloquent here in his appeal to challenge the climate science to hold back nonsense regs on carbon dioxide, but I think he leaves a lot of challenges in his briefcase because, like most hard scientists and engineers, he doesn’t know that a real weakness of the EPA is their human health effects research–it is breathless and brainless and substitutes scaremongering for rational analysis.
So here’s my list–first, challenge the claims of terrible harm to the human race from warming–disease and death, and estimates of millions displaced with no reliable evidence at all, in fact proof to the contrary–warm is good, winter is a killer, warmer climates make for more food, reduced premature deaths better living conditions. Higher latitudes will be more hospitable and grow more food with longer growing seasons.
Carbon dioxide will increase food and fauna production, green up the planet, and increase arable land and plant growth.
Ok, but that’s on the climate/warming carbon dioxide issues–that still leaves another science challenge on the table–the claim that air pollution kills hundreds of thousands, millions and causes cancer and disease and asthma.
Well first of all asthma increasing and air pollution decreasing–HELLO? Besides any doctor (trust me, I am a doctor) will tell you asthma is an allergic disease. cleaner air may, in fact aggravate the impact of allergic sensitivity–it’s called the hygiene theory–more exposure to desesitizing stuff, less over reactivity and asthma.
Then there is the magic EPA toxin, the one that works for everything–small particles and soon to be a star in the EPA toxin catalogue–ultra fine particles. Problem is they use epidemiology that harvests small associations that the EPA says are evidence and they project it to whole societies and the planet’s population–mistake–small associations in observational ecological studies are not proof of anything–so challenges are needed, well developed challenges on the failure of the EPA to show a health or death affect. They dredge and torture the data and still can only find a small association–my, my when you cheat you should at least get what you need.
So yes, we need to challenge the science when it is faulty junk science. Milloy doesn’t give the EPA any excuse for what they are doing–I would say that they are doing what they can to keep the EPA in the driver’s seat, even it it requires cheating ont he science.
For the time being consider Harris’ fine essay on the importance of scientific skepticism and insistence on reliable an verifiable evidence. Mr. Harris is an engineer and Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)