JunkScience has done it again. Continue reading
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
A man is a sheepdog for his family and his friends, he can make he difference when all hell breaks out.
The proposed man of he NYT is a woman. Continue reading
This column has already documented officialdom’s unrelenting war on e-cigarettes. In fact, those articles were some of the best-read I have ever posted, so I guess we touched a nerve. The insidious tag team—comprised of Big Tobacco and the supposed public health interest groups against smoking—is perfectly evocative of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomenon, originally described by economist Bruce Yandle.
Below is another essay put up by Steve Milloy on scientific fraud.
I would say that the authors are naive when they say fraud is less in intensely studied areas of research. They point to climate science as an example–what a crock–anybody willing to say the modelers are involved in reliable and valid science? How about all the yakkers that claim warming will produce a disease ridden world who ignore the benefits of warm for humans and living things?
In areas that are hot and well funded, fraud can, in fact, be worse that in the backwaters where evidence drives the research instead of political agendas and money/power games. Climategate taught us that.
Fraud is rampant when it involves politics or serious eccnomic consequences and lots of funding. Consider the group at George Mason that does climate work and suggested a RICO prosecution of people on our side who oppose the warmer canon, has received almost 100 million over the years for doing really not much at all.
The Hundreds of millions spent by the EPA supporting researchers to bolster their claims about air pollution were spent to buy whores who would claim that small associations in observational studies mean something.
They were so anxious to prove up their case that they did human exposure experiments to try to find some biological/toxicological plausibility evidence, at the same time testifying to congress that air pollution killed hundreds of thousands of Americans every year–as big an impact as cancer, said Lisa Jackson. What Bullshit.
EPA has spent a lot of money to build its case for ever-expanding regulations of air and water. They want their power and pseudo science and an army of researcher whores gives them the leverage. Helps to have advocacy organizations that specialize in the precautionary principle, scaremongering and just plain lying.
The EPA can’t kill animals or humans with small particles or ozone, so they go back to their epidemiological data torturing, taking advantage of variable death rates and training computers to find ASSOCIATIONS.
Are the EPA’s whores churning out good research on air and water pollution epidemiology and toxicology? No.
Are the researchers in subject areas with hot political agendas hewing to the straight and narrow on Scientific methods and objectivity? No.
Are social scientists ever going to be able to stop putting up outcome biased and confirmation biased research? Probably not.
Consider this little thought experiment–if small particle air pollution is so bad and kills acutely and long-term, knocking off more than 300,000 annually according to the EPA, why are the Chinese, who live in cities with serious and severe small particulate and other criteria pollutants air pollution living longer than Americans?
Why don’t hookah bar habitues and marijuana smokers as well as cigarette smokers drop over dead?
So we continue to labor on here at JunkScience.com pointing out the fallacies and biases and the fraud.
The answer appears to be no–not enough U 235 in the materials they were using. Continue reading
Enough already. I have plenty of guns because I have responsibilities to protect against creeps and thugs.
How bout you? Wanna count on the police, who will arrive in time to put up the yellow tape?
I appreciate Roy Spencer’s insights and he way he exposes the silliness of the warmers.