Multi-billion dollar EPA air rule based on ‘belief’

The EPA air chief subtly admits the agency’s junk science?

In a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton about the alleged benefits associated with recently promulgated agency air rules, EPA air chief Gina McCarthy states:

We believe the health improvements achieved by reducing fine particlae exposures represent real benefits to real people… [Emphasis added]

But belief is not a scientific concept.

Check out our new study contradicts the EPA.

7 thoughts on “Multi-billion dollar EPA air rule based on ‘belief’”

  1. I’ll have to agree with Morrow. “believe” is a synonym for “conclude” and while not technically 100% acurrate grammar, it’s hardly anything to challenge.

    I’ll challenge the basic conclusion as pure hogwash. Fine particle pollution has a strong economic correlation, which independently tracks with mortality. The concept of fine particle pollution having no threshold staggers belief. I certainly have seen nothing that would indicate this conclusion to any degree of certainty. In short, that conclusion is non-scientific. If they were arguing for a NAAQS reduction, then that would be one thing. However, by putting a no-acceptable-level declaration for particulate matter, the most ubiquitous and multi-sourced of all pollutants, they have stated that there is no victory condition and that nothing will every be enough.

    You have a strong case, Milloy. Don’t waste your time on this nonsense.

  2. It sure is easy to cherry-pick a word. Why don’t you read the entire letter:

    “EPA’s approach for estimating benefits from reducing fine particle pollution is science-driven. Studies demonstrate an association between premature mortality and fine participle pollution the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that are significantly below the NAAQS for fine particles.”

    “The best scientific evidence, confirmed by an independent, Congressionally-mandated expert panels, is that there is no threshold level of fine particle pollution below which health risk reductions are not achieved by reduced exposure.”

  3. Idiots, the EPA is allowed to squander other peoples money on a….hunch/belief. Purge this awful administration and put handcuffs on the crazies in the EPA. Charge them with…cluelessness.

  4. What can anyone expect from a government agency that tells us that CO2 is bad but doesn’t know how much is in the atmosphere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.