I can’t ever complain about the writing advocacy of Steve Goreham.
Here below he takes up our JS favorite advocacy–the problem of EPA lies on air pollution and their refusal to release their data.
I will tell you I can detect their junk science without looking at their data–they pronounce based on bad scientific principles anyway. Their small associations don’t prove toxicity and they actually admit it.
From Benedict Carey at the New York Times, via Chaos Manor:
“The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly in-house, with a private word at the faculty club, barbed questions at a conference, maybe a quiet dismissal. On the rare occasion when a journal publicly retracted a study, it typically did so in a cryptic footnote. Few were the wiser; many retracted studies have been cited as legitimate evidence by others years after the fact.
I call them unconcerned because they play a key role in the promotion of junk epidemiology and toxicology that has become cover for EPA sponsored junk science to justify fraudulent claims that support bad policy and regulations.
Well even though I think Graham is too much a bureaucrat to be truthful about the corruption of the EPA and their junk science in pursuit of bad policy, there is good to come out of Graham’s recent research showing EPA fraud.