Charlatans Rule at the EPA

Francesca Grifo PhD, doyen of scientific integrity at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has been appointed in charge of scientific integrity at EPA, a lateral move, junk science in the private enviro sector to the same role in government.

With this appointment the EPA accomplishes two things, cover for continued junk science and a thumb in the eye of any serious critic of EPA scientific misconduct.

Good grief, the Union of Concerned Scientists (such a benign sounding name) is a gang of cargo cult science phonies who are advocates, in the service of a statist/socialist/environmentalist/nanny/Luddite political agenda. They habitually violate scientific rules and traditions for leftist causes.

Dr. Grifo is not the one to assure scientific integrity at the EPA when she comes proudly from the advocate, enviro activist Union.

If you have any doubts, look at the Union’s web site and their history.;qsrc=999

The EPA will, no doubt, parade Dr. Grifo around for the press and political pundits as proof of their commitment to scientific reliability. However we who criticize the EPA’s science record know that Dr. Grifo exemplifies how intellectual passion motivated by political agendas produces fallacious thinking, tunnel vision, consensus science bullying, and confirmation bias. Dr. Grifo comes from the dark side of science–science used for political purposes. She is a harbinger of a dystopian future of science in the service of the state. The EPA just put their thumb in the eye of those who urge them to clean up their scientific research programs.

There is little hope that Dr. Grifo will, for example, initiate proper inquiries on transparency and on the scandal of human exposure experiments.

About these ads

14 responses to “Charlatans Rule at the EPA

  1. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    The EPA is stacking the deck with more Charlatan Scientists masquerading as legitimate scientists.

  2. Anytime you mix government and science the result is science for politics sake. I was going to say political science but that idiot term was already taken. We do need some legislation to protect the environment but is a whole department that uses itself to promote a political ideology the answer? The real question is how do we protect and promote the general welfare and not protect and promote excessive government.

  3. Charlatanry at EPA? Even under more conservative administrations, the EPA has had a pointy-hat-smoke-and-mirrors aura. Under Obama, it’s little better than “progressives” doing alchemy.

  4. Another fox added to the guard squad at the hen house.

  5. On the plus side, they might replace her at the Union with Anthony Watts’ dog.

  6. The Liar in the White House makes sure no one in his administration tells the truth. Obama would probably have them “removed” using the IRS, the NSA, the DOJ, or a drone.

  7. I agree all science is done for politics and profit. So the next time you get sick do not turn to science. You can not put yourself in the hands of a doctor of medical sciences. Try voodo it is more consistent with your belief system and will certainly be effective.


    • Jim, IMHO medicine is not a science, it is an art. Just because doctors use scientific apparatus does not mean that they are using science. On the other hand, I believe most doctors are truly trying to do the right things for their patients. However, when doctors stop using logic, and become dependent upon test results and statistics for their conclusions, then they are using voodoo. The current trend is also pushing doctors to be little more than paid servants of insurance companies and government.

      In reference to the topic at hand, though: When scientists become dependent on getting certain specific results in order to get a paycheck, then the science they are doing is being done for the sake of politics and profit. That is just logic. We are, most of us, bought and paid for to do specific measureable and expected things.

      • Thank you for your reply. I am a scientist and I know many scientists. In the main, science is a search for the truth behind things. Just saying all the science is false because all the scientists want is money misses an important point. Most people do not go into science to become rich. Those people become lawyers or banksters. In my opinion the critique of climate research as self serving promotion of a career is misguided and the comments of many anti climate research posters show a disdain for the facts. For example many people repeat statements which are at variance with the facts and this is accepted because it is common in the group of people expressing the same viewpoint. That said, repetition of the same erroneous statements does not make them true, no matter how many people agree with them. I really enjoy reading the cherry picking of facts when real science finds some things which do not precisely agree with the thesis that climate change is happening. Real science is messy and many facts do not fit precisely into neat lock step with the thesis. Things that do not precisely agree with the thesis stimulate further research into the causes of the phenomenon. There are many people who deride climate research because the models are not “perfect”. The road map I have of Texas is not perfect, I have spotted several slight errors. I still use it, because it is a useful model of where the roads are at, and it helps me get around to places I have never been. The function of science is to provide a road map of the data and to point out the road to get to where society wants to go. If you look at the people who fund climate denial research you will find people with a vested interest in denying the existence of global warming- such as the Koch brothers- . They fund many climate warming denial sites and make their money from the oil industry. Incidentally I work in the oil industry as a geologist and recognize that my work is certainly to the detriment of the world. My personal situation is highly unfortunate and I am constrained by some factors that I can not discuss online from leaving the oil industry. Hypocrisy- yes probably, but you do not know my circumstances,

        Best Regards


        • Jim –
          I am an engineer, and have worked alongside scientists for many years. I would agree that science is a search for truth, but I have also heard many scientists say that certain truths will have to wait for the passing of the current scientific leadership before the new truths can come out. Truth seems to be subject to both monetary concerns and peer pressure.
          In regard to your comment about imperfect models, I once had the opportunity to read a paper that was about to be published (and had gone through peer review). It was a 30-page paper, with lots of graphs and charts to illustrate the author’s conclusions. Upon careful reading, though, the entire paper (and graphs and charts) were based upon one data point. It was ludicrous to even call it science. But it was published to great acclaim for the author.
          I personally think that the science-by-press-release that is occurring in regard to possible anthropomorphic climate change is setting a very bad precedent in regards to doing real science. I think any real science being done about studying climate would simply be recording raw data for many years (as in decades or even centuries) before making any guesses about whether climate is changing abnormally, and what may be causing it. Taking a few decades of measurements of carbon dioxide (on the side of an active volcano) and gathering another few decades of temperatures taken at the sites of airports doesn’t really say anything about climate. It does, however, say a lot about the air near an active volcano, and the temperatures that exist near airport runways.
          Jim, you mention that the function of science is to provide a road map of the data and to point out the road to get to where society wants to go. I would disagree, respectfully, with that. The function of science is to collect data, lots and lots of data. Then the function of the scientist is to analyze that data, and make guesses (that could become an hypothesis) about what the data means. And then that scientist presents his guesses in a paper, with all the data available, so that other people can test those guesses. There is no road map, no noble genius scientist who carefully guides society. There is data, and there are guesses about what the data means. There is no road to Nirvana or Shangri-La, no Lost Horizons which the scientist will lead society to.

          • My personal opinions as to climate research are as follows: If there is a possibility of error in evaluation of the data I like to examine the possible outcomes if I choose wrongly. So here goes: 1. If I am right and there is climate change caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere then I should encourage society to slow emission of carbon dioxide to levels not as likely to cause widespread damage. Result – it will cost money to change our ways. It will likely be inconvenient, And it may well cost jobs in some industries (i may loose mine- i work in the oil industry). 2.If I am right about carbon dioxide caused climate change and I do nothing what will happen? Well there are a number of possible bad outcomes but lets focus on water. Weather climate patterns are currently changing and the deserts which exist around the earth girdling the equatorial jungles are expanding away from the equator both to the north and south. The rainfall that waters agriculture is shifting to areas further away from the equator in both north and southern hemisphere. The shift is not very large now but quite visible as a general trend in Africa where lakes in sub tropical areas are drying up. Yes you can argue about the weather but the general pattern on a world wide basis is looking pretty convincing. So big deal the weather has shifted before and will continue to shift. Right? Well not exactly. There are billions of people living on earth and a change in rainfall patterns can have really bad impacts on poor people with low food security. If we in a rich country have any obligation to the poor of other countries it is that our actions or inaction should have no bad effect upon people who can not protect themselves. 3. If I am wrong about carbon dioxide causing global warming then the science of physics has no basis in fact, and the actions I propose will be totally in vain, and the costs of those actions will be borne by society to no avail. I do not think I am wrong. The science of physics supports the idea that carbon dioxide is a green house gas. Inaction in this regard will cause needless suffering in poor countries, and if current trends continue will cause food problems in rich agricultural countries such as the “United States.

            Best Regards

            James Fisher

            • The Precautionary Principle, eh? Who is right, and who is wrong? I would have to say that if the rich countries destroy their economies for the sake of the poor countries, who will be left to help the poor? Better for the rich countries to continue being rich, whether it warms the climate or not. And better for the rich countries to raise the standard of living in the poor countries, whether it warms the climate or not. I have a hard time believing that we went through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and dislodged the planet Earth from being the center of the universe, just so people like Al Gore could pretend that we have any measurable effect on the climate of this world. People are not the center of the universe, and certainly do not have the powers to supposedly change anything dramatically in this world.

  8. I would like to jump in for some balance. The practice of medicine is like engineering or archictecture–results is what we look for and get rewarded for.

    Thomas Sowell in his book Intellectuals and Society is helpful–he distinguishes problems solvers from intellectuals who trade in “ideas” and commit to ideologies.

    The intellectual class is allowed a great latitude, it’s called accountability.

    The talk that is saw above about the compromise of the integrity of medicine is colored by judgments on motivations about some medical approaches and a resentment of the medical profession born of some resentment. It’s like the resentment of most people who have had a bad experience with a failed medical treatment.

    Wanna see a resentful bunch, people who grow to hate physicians, deal with people who have or who have a family member who has a terrible incurable condition or suffers from a condition that cannot be cured.

    That resentment is a coping mechanism or a reaction.

    However, to return to the issue, practicing physicians are not involved in our deliberations or attentions unless they have been recruited to provide cover for a political agenda. Then they are not practicing medicine, they are practicing politics.

    You would be absolutely stunned to know how little practicing physicians in their youth and in the prime of their professional career do not care much about politics, or political perversions of science. That is reserved to a group you might call the chattering class of medicine, People who go to meetings and are in academic areas where policy becomes a focus.

    The care of patients is a consuming thing.

    Just as a simple example, when i ask faculty and residents and students if they know what the precautionary principle is, they have no knowledge.

    The precautionary principle is important to people who worry about policy making. Practicing physicians are extraordinarily naive about how science has been highjacked even when it pertains to public health policy making. They learn a scientific method, feel the pressure to be competent and don’t worry too much about the politics unless they have a curiosity that take them to it–academic, political or intellectual. Most physicians find their work demanding and rewarding enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s