NYTimes reporters are unhappy I slammed their article on Twitter. Here’s why I did.
My tweet was followed by these from NYTimes John Schwartz (read from bottom up).
The NYTimes article is below. [My comments are in bold brackets.]
For the detailed PM2.5 saga, read my book, “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.”
For a summary of the secret science saga, read my Wall Street Journal op-ed, “The EPA Cleans Up Its Science (March 26, 2018).”
###
The E.P.A. Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See an Attack on Science.
By Lisa Friedman
March 26, 2018
The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a major change to the way it assesses scientific work, a move that would severely restrict the research available to it when writing environmental regulations. [In my view… had it been included in the NYTimes article… the EPA’s “major change’ would only “severely restrict” the influence of “secret science” and science fraud on its rules. You see, before we can call a line of studies “science,” it must have been independently replicated as well as meeting a number of other criteria that depend on the nature of the work. The first sentence of this article misreads naive readers into thinking that science is being restricted. Nope… just secret science and science fraud. Big difference.]
Under the proposed policy, the agency would no longer consider scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry groups to examine. As a result, regulators crafting future rules would quite likely find themselves restricted from using some of the most consequential environmental research of recent decades, such as studies linking air pollution to premature deaths or work that measures human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals. [If you read my book “Scare Pollution,” you cannot escape reaching the conclusion that the “studies linking air pollution to premature death” are not science, but fraud. After all, what reputable scientist would hide their data from public scrutiny for 20+ years? Only frauds do that. The NYTimes has elevated this fraud to the status of “research” when it has never been fairly reviewed or replicated.]
The reason: These fields of research often require personal health information for thousands of individuals, who typically agree to participate only if the details of their lives are kept confidential. [This is a total BS and the NYTimes knows it… because I explained it to its reporters. No one is interested in the details of anyone’s life. The only data required for the air quality studies are date of death, age of death, cause of death and zip code of death. All this is information already made publicly available on death certificates. So no privacy issue. While replication of some studies may require other information such as smoking history and level of education, since there is no personal identifying information being sought, there is no loss of privacy — particularly with people who are already dead. So far, NYTimes readers are only getting the impression that the Trump administration is wantonly seeking personal information in an insidious bid to block EPA from regulating based on science. The actual storyline is the Trump EPA is putting an end to the use of science fraud as a basis for anti-business rules.]
The proposed new policy — the details of which are still being worked out — is championed by the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, who has argued that releasing the raw data would let others test the scientific findings more thoroughly. “Mr. Pruitt believes that Americans deserve transparency,” said Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman. [Scott Pruitt is positioned by the NYTimes as “arguing” against the NYTimes narrative of invasion of personal privacy in the name of industry-friendly havoc-wreaking on EPA rulemaking.]
Critics, though, say that Mr. Pruitt’s goal is not academic rigor, but to undermine much of the science that underpins modern environmental regulations governing clean water and clean air. Restricting the application of established science when crafting new E.P.A. rules could make it easier to weaken or repeal existing health regulations, these people say. [Let’s see who these critics are. Next paragraph please.]
The proposal is “cloaked in all of these buzzwords, in all of the positive things that we want to be for: ‘science,’ ‘transparency,’” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, an independent blog that monitors scientific journals and exposes errors and misconduct. While Dr. Oransky said he agreed that it was critical to hold the scientific process accountable, he said he believed Mr. Pruitt’s intent was to inject doubt into areas of public health where none exists. “Data he doesn’t like will get disqualified,” Dr. Oransky said. [Oransky is no expert on PM2.5 or any thing else EPA does. To my knowledge, he doesn’t know the first thing about the history of EPA secret science. He may be a “critic” — but he does not know what he is criticizing. Another NYTimes fail. Retraction Watch is not known for critiquing EPA science like, say, that guy that runs JunkScience.com.]
The pending E.P.A. policy would have implications for much of what the agency touches, whether it is new rules addressing climate change or regulations for pesticides and protecting children from lead paint. [Wrong again. And I explained this to the NYTimes. The secret science issue has nothing to do with climate, the review of which fall under an entirely different legal context (the Data Quality Act). I don’t know where the lead paint point came from — other than just the desire to inflame naive readers. There is no controversial epidemiology about children eating lead paint. As to pesticides, yes, there is a major secret science issue with one insecticide (chlorpyrifos) and the Columbia University researchers who refuse to release their raw data for independent replication.]
“This affects every aspect of environmental protection in the United States,” said David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health under President Barack Obama. Mr. Michaels, now a professor at George Washington University, called the plan “weaponized transparency.” [The secret science ban will not affect every aspect of environment protection, simply because secret science is not a problem in every aspect of environmental protection. In fact, secret science is not a factor in environmental protection at all. It is a driving factor in EPA overregulation — the kind that wiped out 94% of the market value of the coal industry during the Obama years. So that is just hysteria from the former Obama appointee who, by the way, wrote a book on why he doesn’t think that industry should be able to defend itself against junk science.” No disclosure to readers of his bias.]
Opponents and supporters agree that the proposed new policy has its roots in the fossil fuel industry’s opposition to a groundbreaking 1993 Harvard University study that definitively linked polluted air to premature deaths. [“Definitively”? Really? Total ignorance on the part of the NYTimes or just, gotta keep that narrative going.] The “Six Cities” study, widely considered one of the most influential public health examinations ever conducted, tracked thousands of people for nearly two decades and ultimately formed the backbone of federal air pollution regulations. [The Six City Study is and always has been total fraud. That’s why the Harvard researchers been hiding their data for 24 years. It has two types of defenders — the ignornant and the lying.]
In that study, which began in the mid-1970s, scientists signed confidentiality agreements so they could track the private medical and occupational histories of more than 22,000 individuals in six cities around the country. They combined that personal data with home air-quality data in order to study the link between chronic exposure to air pollution and mortality. [Half of this study population were smokers or former smokers and virtually all were exposed to secondhand smoke. The exposure to PM2.5 from tobacco smoke far outweighs (by orders of magnitude) and PM2.5 in the outdoor air. Once again, no one cares about their personal information.]
Academics aren’t typically required to turn over such private data when submitting studies for peer review by other specialists in the field, or for review and publication in scientific journals, which is the traditional way that this kind of research is evaluated. [This is more a reflection on the poor state of peer (or “pal”) review in academia. Modern peer review is just proof-reading and rubber-stamping among colleagues. Check the data? Never.] If academics were to turn over the raw data to be made available for public review, the agency would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a federal estimate, to redact private information. [More total BS. Personal information can be redacted/deleted in moments at almost no cost. Ever heard of computers, NYTimes?]
The bottom line, critics say, is that if the E.P.A. is limited to considering only studies in which the data is publicly available, the agency will have a narrower and incomplete body of research to draw on when considering regulations. “It sends a pretty chilling message to scientists that their work can’t be used or won’t be used,” said Sean Gallagher, a government relations officer with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit science advocacy organization. [First, let’s keep in mind that the studies in question were paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers don’t get to see what their tax dollars have produced and what will be used to regulate them? Next, what actual scientist wouldn’t be proud to share his data and get plaudits for doing great work or accept criticism and improve his hypothesis? Only a fraud.]
Mr. Pruitt laid out his plans for the new transparency policy in an interview last week with The Daily Caller, a conservative news site. [ What of it? The Pentagon Ppaers were first leaked to the anti-war NYTimes. Deep Throat only contacted the Nixon-hating WaPO’s Woodward and Bernstein. The Daily Caller should be applauded for getting the scoop.] The proposal is based on legislation named the Honest and Open New E.P.A. Science Treatment Act, also known as the Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. The bill has failed to gain support in Congress for years despite having the support of the energy, manufacturing and chemical industries. [The bill has passed the past three Houses. So it has a lot of support. It has not made it out of the Senate because of the filibuster rule.]
That legislation aimed to preclude the E.P.A. from using any studies that could not be independently reproduced. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign finance data, versions of the bill have received support from Exxon Mobil, Peabody Energy, Koch Industries and the American Chemistry Council, which provides policy and research for major chemical companies including Arkema, DuPont and Monsanto. [Kudos to these business and associations for supporting transparent science.]
Mr. Smith, the sponsor of the stalled Congressional legislation, applauded the E.P.A.’s proposed move. “Our citizens have a right to see the data that the E.P.A. says justifies their regulations,” he said in a statement. He has argued that E.P.A. regulations in the past were justified by data that was impossible to verify independently. [Fifteen paragraphs in, the NYTimes gets it right.]
Industry lobbyists who welcome the proposed changes agreed with that assessment. “Peer reviews, and reviews in general, can tell you what you want them to tell you, depending on who is in charge of the department,” said Colin Woodall, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. [Wow, two paragraphs in a row.]
Mr. Woodall, who supported Mr. Smith’s bill as well as the proposed new E.P.A. policy, said he believed studies used under the Obama administration to support clean air regulations, protect national waterways and, in particular, target agriculture’s role in climate change, were flawed. If the underlying data were online, he said, industry groups could “go to our own scientists and say, ‘Can you confirm those conclusions are accurate?’” [An incredible three consecutive lucid and fair paragraphs.]
Opponents of the proposed E.P.A. policy say the effort all comes back to the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long frustration over the Six Cities study and a related one sponsored by the American Cancer Society. Those studies, which have been independently evaluated and have had their findings confirmed, underpinned the first Clean Air Act regulations on fine particulate matter. Based on the research, the E.P.A. in 1997 estimated the rule would prevent 15,000 premature deaths annually and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and bronchitis. [Absolutely wrong. The findings have never been “confirmed” because the data have never been made available to independent scientists. Jim Enstrom somehow obtained some of the the Pope/American Cancer Society data (mortality data through 1988). His effort to replicate Pope’s original 1993 claims failed. The study is published here). So much for the NYTimes three paragraph streak.]
“They didn’t like the regulation, so they tried to attack the science underlying the regulation,” said Mr. Gallagher of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said the demand for transparency was in fact an effort to undermine scientific independence. “It has become very clear to us that this is not about science. This is a means to an end.” [What? Replicating studies is “not about science”? (An appalling statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) And this is the last outside view in the article? Oh right, must get back to narrative for the naive reader.]
Since taking the helm of the E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt has clashed with the scientific community several times.
In October, the agency forbade three agency scientists from speaking about climate change at a conference on the health of the Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Shortly after that, Mr. Pruitt ruled that scientists who receive E.PA. grants would no longer be allowed to serve on the agency’s advisory boards, a move that effectively blocked more than a dozen academic researchers from providing expertise about the latest science as the E.P.A. considered regulations. Last year, more than 200 scientists left the agency, reflecting what many have described as frustration over Mr. Pruitt and President Donald Trump’s policies. [Here is an accurate explanation of why Pruitt took action on the science advisers. You decide whether it was nefarious or just another effort to disinfect the cesspool that is EPA science.]
Late last year, Mr. Pruitt also proposed holding public debates on the merits of scientific findings that indicate human activity is responsible for climate change — research that is widely accepted within the scientific community. That plan was thwarted by John F. Kelly, the president’s chief of staff. [This is fake news. Kelly never thwarted anything Pruitt wanted to do. Yes, I have my sources, too.]
Lisa Friedman reports on climate and environmental policy in Washington. A former editor at Climatewire, she has covered eight international climate talks. @LFFriedman
###
A final comment for now… why does this article not feature any of the primary actors here… Doug Dockery of Harvard, Arden Pope of Brigham Young or myself? The NYTimes getting Dockery and Pope to provide real answers to my questions would have been journalism. The PM2.5 ignoramus Ivan Oransky? Gimme a break.