Comments for All the junk that’s fit to debunk. Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:20:09 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Chemical Scaremongering: It’s time to dismantle the alarmism industry by BETTY O Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:20:09 +0000 How about the bacon scare? I resumed enjoying this luscious delicacy when I discovered that I would have to eat 10lbs of bacon daily to equal the amount of carcinogens rubbed on the backs of lab rats.

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by Rog. L Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:22:55 +0000 Exhaust ‘particulate filters’ must be one of the great [apparent] triumphs of prescriptive law over natural law…
50 years ago diesel vehicles emitted TSP liberally and filthily into other road-users’ faces….
Now the unavoidable PM from reciprocating engines is trapped on an exhaust filter, which, when choked full of TSP heats up and blows out PM<0.1 which is guaranteed to be 100% 'respirable' ….
The big joke seems to be that every 10um particle in the raw exhaust stream gets blown out as a million particles of PM 0.1 with 10000 times the surface area [available to every kind of sh#t for adsorption] of the 10um particle …………'clean exhaust'…………..sob / guffaw….

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by Loren Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:19:07 +0000 To continue tightening NOx emissions from next vehicle generation, the Commission has recently proposed a new regulatory act – RDE Act 3 which will further tighten and fine-tune the testing provisions. The proposal is scheduled to be presented and voted at the meeting of the Technical Committee of Motor Vehicles on 20 December 2016.
The Commission proposes to extend RDE testing to cover particle number (PN) emissions. Emission of particles used to be an issue linked only to diesel engines, clearly visible in the soot of diesel exhaust fumes. Emitted particles have however become smaller and smaller and ‘invisible’ to the eye. Such small but still cancerous particles equally exist for common diesel cars as well as for petrol cars with direct injection technology. Although the Commission does not prescribe the technology to be used by car manufacturers to meet the limits, in practice, petrol direct injection vehicles which would not be able to reach the particle limits in real driving tests will have to introduce Gasoline Particle Filters (GPF). GPF is a very effective means of limiting particles, very similar to the Diesel Particle Filters, which were already introduced on modern diesel vehicles.
Under RDE Act 3, the Commission will also fine-tune the testing methods to take into account that short city trips starting with a cold engine generate the most city pollution.
It also plans to mandate that the real-world emission performance of a car is clearly stated by the manufacturer in the certificate of conformity of each vehicle, i.e. that it is transparent and available for all citizens.
Moreover, the Commission plans to include further provisions on checks for cars already in circulation as well as on strengthening the independence of testing in the RDE Act 4 proposal that should follow in 2017.

Comment on Letting Oil Haters Run Big Oil by ScienceABC123 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:25:26 +0000 If this continues as a trend, expect to see the return of the oil barons/magnates, where large oil companies are privately owned.

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by Rog. L Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:32:13 +0000 Don’t want to prattle on too much, but for me the biggest revelation in ‘Scare Pollution’ was the fact that over 80 years ago, PM was discounted as a contributor to the early ‘atmospheric toxicity events’…
The most competent pathological investigators carefully went through all the evidence and realistcally blamed high [SO2] from coal smoke…
The popularity of PM itself as a danger to civilization only re-emerged about 25 years ago and was a great hit with ‘air quality scientists’ whose parents were not even born in 1930……….
Sure, millions of people have been killed by inhaling the wrong stuff [e.g. H2O] but the millions of tobacco smokers who survived years of inhaling vast concentrations of PM from [incomplete] carbohydrate combustion should have told these ‘scientists’ something………..

Comment on Letting Oil Haters Run Big Oil by Rog. L Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:03:50 +0000 Tough luck re the XOM AGM, but great to see your coverage in the Investor’s Business Daily…….
You are, however, lucky in the USA to have a sane intelligent magnanimous mogul in the White house, but some weak gullible PC types ‘heading’ the private sector……..
It could easily be the other way around……..

BTW, There appears to be an error in your text……..
‘The progressive left’ should read ‘The malignant left’

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by Gary845 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:19:36 +0000 In an AP piece out last week, “Study shows deadly heat waves are becoming more frequent” (note: the study starts in 1980 . . that’s right when the 4+ decades of global cooling ended and the cycle shifted back to warming. What about the 1910-1945 GW period?), Seth Borenstein is fixated on pushing the “pollution is causing GW/CC” lie. He uses GW and CC interchangeably.


. . to determine how much more frequent [killer heat waves] they will become under different carbon dioxide pollution scenarios.’

. . shows that under the current pollution projections, the entire eastern United States will have a significant number of killer heat days . .

If pollution continues as it has, Mora said, by the end of the century the southern United States will have entire summers of what he called lethal heat conditions.


Comment on Letting Oil Haters Run Big Oil by jimmy Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:17:54 +0000 What’s the end goal though?
Is Exxon’s business plan is to prospect less for oil, bring to market less oil, make less gasoline and less petroleum derivatives ALL to drive the price up? (under the guise that climate change made us have to ‘go’ this route)

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by iheartagw Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:25:36 +0000 “The new California study not only trumps EPA’s studies substantively”.

Somehow California and trump just don’t go together.

Comment on Junk Science Week: Behind the scientific fraud that claims air pollution is killing people by Albert Donnay Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:08:19 +0000 Well said. But not the whole story. While one hand of EPA (the one doing all the hand waving in public) is propping up heavily massaged and cherry picked evidence that PM2.5 kills people, EPA’s other hand (the one behind its back) has for decades been silent on CO, with no public mention of the poisonings and deaths it still causes, or the fact that CO emissions still exceed PM and ALL other NAAQS air pollutants.

No fancy stat modeling is needed to conjure the victims of CO Poisoning :
According to CDC, hospitals in USA treat over 230,000 CO cases per year , about 10% of whom are admitted (20,000) and about 1% die (over 1500 real people). Many victims never fully recover and so the social cost runs into billions.

The most common source is CO from gasoline vehicles. This is clearly under EPA’s CAA authority to regulate, but EPA has not changed the CO Naaqs since adopted in 1971.

For some reason –maybe several reasons– EPA decided to go after PM from diesel vehicles instead, even though ERs don’t report treating anyone for PM poisoning beyond smoke inhalation from fires.