More on the savagery that characterizes UCLA reactions to scientific dissent.
Category Archives: Methodology
I get bored a little, pointing out the insanity of the lefty climate nuts.
Whenever the left appears to care, watch out for your pocket-book or worse. Now they are working the soldier/vet/suicide/ptsd pity party.
I am like a broken record, but its an important tune.
I put up an explanation of one hit theory of tox that grew from junk radiation biophysics and tox.
However, one of our commenters understands things better then me by far.
The threshold concept still holds in tox except when the EPA is on a tear.
Last week we discussed John T James’ study that he claims shows 400 thousand
American Hospital inpatients die of preventable event.
There is nothing bad that can’t be blamed on warming–since warming is sometimes in the future–you know.
This essay discusses why the IPCC holds on to the myth and just waffles around the edges.
An excellent and insightful expose’ of the fanatic warmer movement that is in denial and enslaved to elaborate modeling and predictions. Thanks Dr. Battig.
I got to know Milloy because I needed to know him.
Look at this lovely lie–the WHO claims 7 million deaths in 2012 due to air pollution.
No such thing. They base their claims on research that is so bad that the US EPA has authorized unethical human experiments to try to salvage the nonsense of their death claims. The US EPA death claims are the research foundation for the WHO claims.
Here’s the news from a Philippine News Source, quoting the WHO spokesman from UK.
This claim is so silly–where do we start?
1. No studies have been done on indoor pollution that would support one segment.
2. The outdoor air studies fail to adjust for indoor air exposure, since people live indoors.
3. The projections of total deaths come from the outdoor air pollution studies and are claimed to be premature deaths, but the researchers don’t count premature deaths, they are just counting deaths on the days when the death rate is higher. In other words they are harvesting noise of normal variations.
The death records are correlated to days when air pollution is greater in the game of data dredging and misrepresentation. The death of an old, old man on a day of higher death rates wold be counted as a premature death.
The US EPA is doing human exposure experiments to try to fix their junk science is –they admitted it under oath.
This is in spite of the US EPA declaring through its Executive Director, Lisa Jackson that the US EPA considers particulate air pollution lethal, toxic and carcinogenic and that it kills 300,000 people in the US annually. To stop air pollution deaths would be the equivalent of curing cancer.
Jon Samet, MD MPH, Chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the US EPA declared in 2011 that he thinks there is no safe level of small particle pollution. Yet he knows of the human exposure experiments–is he vicious or just lying about how toxic he thinks it is. What would this supposed high flying physician recently reappointed to chair the most influential US EPA medical and scientific advisory panels say to these people who have been exposed to what he considers lethal. These people have never been warned in a consent to be a subject to these experiments that they could die.
Moreover, if that was a risk no experiment would be considered ethical under American and International Law and ethics.
Hasn’t Dr. Samet heard of the Nuremberg Tribunals and the Nuremberg Code that proscribes human experiments that could harm, with only extraordinary exceptions where the good that might come is considered extremely important?
So here Dr. Samet, Current Chair of the USEPA CASAC states his case that there is no safe level of air pollution.
But the US EPA is funding human exposure experiments in 10 medical schools in the United States 6 foreign schools, for decades now, –according to Eugene Cascio MD in a written statement under oath.
Declaration of Eugene Cascio MD
As for the scientific reasons that the US EPA does the human exposure experiments, including to children and people with medical problems, read this:
Robert Devlin, PhD senior scientists with the US EPA Human health Effects research program was quite clear.
Written submission to the Federal Court under penalty of perjury:
Declaration of Robert Devlin PhD
Just a few juicy tidbits.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT DEVLIN
I, Robert B. Devlin, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare, under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, experience or upon information provided to me by persons under my supervision:
1. I am a Senior Scientist (ST) for the Environmental Public Health Division (EPHD), National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As one of three STs in NHEERL I am expected to be a scientific leader in the area of air pollution research, to define important areas of research, assemble teams to carry out that research and ensure it is completed in a timely manner and published in peer-reviewed journals. I am currently on detail as Acting Associated Director for Health for NHEERL. Prior to my current position, I was Chief of the Clinical Research Branch (CRB) of the EPHD from 1994 – 2008. The CRB is responsible for doing nearly all controlled human exposure studies within NHEERL.
7. Epidemiological observations are the primary tool in the discovery of risks to public health such as that presented by ambient PM2.5. However, epidemiological studies do not generally provide direct evidence of causation. They indicate the existence or lack of a statistical relationship between ambient levels of PM2.5 and adverse health outcomes. Large population studies cannot assess the biological mechanisms (called biological plausibility) that could
explain how inhaling ambient air pollution particles can cause illness or death in susceptible individuals. This sometimes leaves open the question of whether the observed association in the epidemiological study is causal or whether PM2.5 is merely a marker for some other unknown substance.
8. Controlled human exposure studies conducted by EPA scientists and EPA funded scientists at multiple universities in the United States fill an information gap that cannot be filled by large population studies. In 1998 the Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter was established by the National Research Council in response to a request from Congress. The committee was charged with producing four reports over a five-year period which describe a conceptual framework for an integrated national program of particulate-matter research and identified the most critical research needs linked to key policy-related scientific uncertainties. Excerpts from their most recent report (published in 2004) are attached as Exhibit
1 to this Declaration. On page 36 the Committee says:
Controlled human exposure studies offer the opportunity to study small numbers of human subjects under carefully controlled exposure conditions and gain valuable insights
Case 1:12-cv-01066-AJT-TCB Document 14-1 Filed 10/04/12 Page 15 of 135 PageiD# 325
into both the relative deposition of inhaled particles and the resulting health effects. Individuals studied can range from healthy people to individuals with cardiac or respiratory diseases of varying degrees of severity. In all cases, the specific protocols defining the subjects, the exposure conditions, and the evaluation procedures must be reviewed and approved by institutional review boards providing oversight for human experimentation. The exposure atmospheres studied vary, ranging from well-defined, single-component aerosols (such as black carbon or sulfuric acid) to atmospheres produced by recently developed particle concentrators, which concentrate the particles present in ambient air. The concentrations of particles studied are limited by ethical considerations and by concern for the range of concentrations, from the experimental setting to typical ambient concentration, over which findings need to be extrapolated.
. . .
I have been engaged in performing controlled human exposure studies as an EPA investigator since 1986.
Milloy and JunkScience have been on the hunt since fall of 2012, investigating complaining, even participation in a lawsuit to order a halt in the human experimentation. Also encouraging other administrative political and legal actions to stop this unethical conduct.
Read about these things on the right hand side of the home site, and at:
I don’t have an I phone or a new jazzy I pad.
I also understand the concepts of inductive and deductive reasoning and somewhat less well discussed but frequently used method of abductive reasoning (inference of the best possible explanation by means of incomplete evidence).
In fact I do believe I have a very good tool in abductive reasoning that is too much neglected–there are many uncertainties in life and scientific inquiry. We cannot be present to confirm every piece of evidence we might consider important to prove up an hypothesis.
But I digress. Here Victor discusses the problem of knowledge versus wisdom.
Yesterday another old doc and I, faculty for a residency that is supposed to teach new docs old tricks (think about that a minute).
We were ruminating on how we can teach the art of medicine–in fact–what is the art of being a good diagnostician/therapist/procedurist. What are the magic secrets and tricks and mental strategies that should be taught? How can we short cut to wisdom?
Is an I pad a way to wisdom or a way to the illusion of smarts?
Is there a shortcut to competence and mature wisdom?
We’ll get back to you on that one.
John Christy, Boss of the Weather and Satellite studies program at Huntsville, says it’s not that good.
I received info that the triple threat of Lindzen, Christy and Curry are on an American Physical Society (APS) review committee on Climate Science, Climate Models, and the assertions of the IPCC and their allies.
I like this guy–knows how to tell a funny story about the foibles of man–Mark Twainish
The rule in the practice of law is–if the law or the facts don’t support your position, pound the table.
Here’s something you don’t see often–elites admitting they are junksters.