University of California profs demand continuation of air pollution gravy train

Nineteen research professors from the University of Southern California, UCLA, UC-Irvine and the California Institute of Technology have written the South Coast Air Quality Management District urging more stringent air quality regulations. I’m sure all the federal money they get for their “research” has nothing to do with their request.

Here’s their letter.

Here’s the federal funding for the principal investigators among the signatories — $307,476,712 worth of grants.

Screen Shot 2016-09-05 at 9.53.33 AM

Source of funding data:

EPA: Research Grants Data Base

NIEHS: NIH Reporter

7 thoughts on “University of California profs demand continuation of air pollution gravy train”

  1. Thank you for showing the public how politicians use public research funds to generate “97% consensus scientific support” for falsehoods.

    A paper published in the International Journal of Academic Research two days ago shows the enormous social cost from a seemingly minor error in the definition of nuclear “binding energy.”

    http://www.journalijar.com/article/11650/neutron-repulsion–social-costs-from-overlooking-this-power/

    That “minor error” has isolated humanity from reality for the past eighty years, 1936-2016.

  2. California is leading the world in spending money on clean air with no visible benefits.
    Even if the science shows regulations do not produce any health improvements.

  3. If there was any truth to what they say, millions would be dropping dead in china daily. Time to close the money train, since the “science” that they are pushing is proven to be wrong.

  4. If one “follows the money” in this whole weather/climate/green energy scam, one quickly sees what the motivation is for 90% of the “scientific” research and its very predictable findings.

  5. Nobody want’s to breathe poison air. (London’s pea soup fog anybody? How about L.A. smog so bad you think that you’ve just chained-smoked smoked three packs of Luckys) Fortunately, simple, basic controls and equally simple and common sense regs will take care of most of it. Except for the narcissists, hypochondriacs and hysterics (and rent seekers) most people are happy with the results.

    It’s the getting rid of those last few percentage points that’s gets expensive. I guess these guys have never heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns. If they had actually to pay for all this stuff out of their own pockets, perhaps they wouldn’t be pushing it so hard.

    As it is, they’re just rentiers looking for some income security.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

  6. If that $300 million had been used to create or purchase products (filters, etc) that actually reduced pollution, then we could live with that.

    But to give that much money to people who will then (1) ask for more money for more “research”; (2) impose regulations that cost jobs and we get stuck paying for; (3) to funnel $ to politicians who will help them do all of the above.

    Obtaining money under false pretenses is a crime. An honest justice department would have a field day with these crooks.

  7. Being a professor of ‘preventative medicine’ almost necessitates something like this.

    One might argue they have had enough money to study the effects – or lack of – of air pollution.

    One might ask how much money is going to be needed to do ‘studies’ of air.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.