New study debunks key EPA PM2.5 study

Even playing by the rules of junk science, C. Arden Pope III’s infamous 1995 PM2.5 study holds no water.

The abstract for the new study is below. The study is here. Pope’s original 1995 study is here.

Pope’s work is so bad, he was forced to argue that breathing outdoor air is more dangerous than smoking.

5 thoughts on “New study debunks key EPA PM2.5 study”

  1. “The educated man and the scientist are as prone as any other to become the victim of his prejudices. He will, in defense thereof, make shipwreck of both the facts and methods of science, by perpetrating every form of fallacy, inaccuracy and distortion.” Karl Pearson

  2. Wow- lower exposure to a harmful substance is more toxic than greater exposure to the same? You’ve got to be kidding. But then again, this is our government that we’re talking about. When one talks about “draining the swamp”, what comes to mind with C. Arden Pope III’s “science” is akin to the filthy layer of scum floating right on the surface that so quickly dissipates when an iota of truthful disinfectant is applied.

  3. JarBro says:
    Wow- lower exposure to a harmful substance is more toxic than greater exposure to the same?

    He must be a homeopath.

  4. JarBro is right….Dissolve 1 milligram of PM in a liter of water then shake hell out of it and you get PM 6X….
    Then dissolve this in 1000 liters of water and you have 10 million 1-drop doses of PM 9X at say $10 per 1 ml bottle……
    Homeopathic Utopia and the cure for all ‘air-pollution hazards’ to the elderly?
    Not quite…………… because the commonly-encountered 12 ug/cu.m. PM in the air is the same concentration as PM 8X….[10 ppb]

  5. I’m waiting for Michael Mann to ride, in a cloud of dust, to the rescue of two fellow travelers. Their end justifies their willingness to be dishonest in front of so many people. The light, in the same manner as cast by Steve McIntyre. Let’s see if the roaches scurry for the darkness as most expect.

Comments are closed.