By design, the public comment period at today’s EPA Science Advisory Board meeting will feature only Trump EPA opponents.

Continue reading ‘Resistance’ games EPA Science Advisory Board meeting
By design, the public comment period at today’s EPA Science Advisory Board meeting will feature only Trump EPA opponents.

Continue reading ‘Resistance’ games EPA Science Advisory Board meeting
If you’re going to be in Washington, DC on July 17, you can make oral comments on the EPA proposal. Click for the Federal Register notice.
Arden Pope had 14 months to find an error in Jim Enstrom’s 2017 redo and takedown of Pope’s 1995 study. Despite Pope’s arm-waving no actual error was found.

Here is the paragraph of Enstrom’s response:
Read Enstrom’s entire response published in Dose-Response.
Background/Additional Reading
The letters are finally published for last December’s junk science-powered PM2.5 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. We made huge progress.

Wait until President Trump finds out about this, Mick.

There will be a public hearing in Washington DC on July 17. Comments due by August 17.

This is a new PM2/5/ozone analysis from Stan Young et al. It uses a different methodology from last year’s California study on the same California data. Same answer, though. And the data is available from the study authors — something the EPA-funded air pollution mafia refuses to share.

Continue reading New Study: Still no association between PM2.5, ozone and premature death
Check out my line-by-line comments on her embarrassing essay in this week’s Nature.

Continue reading Fake ‘science historian’ Naomi Oreskes attacks EPA science transparency proposal
A memo prepared by the University of Washington’s Alison Cullen for the upcoming EPA Science Advisory Board meeting exposes the plot.

Continue reading Air Pollution Mafia Attempting to Sabotage EPA Science Transparency Rulemaking
The combination of the Washington Post printing an op-ed by a conservative economist supporting the Scott Pruitt-led EPA’s science transparency initiative, which then becomes an EPA media release… well, that just doesn’t happen every day!

I’ve always suspected that Stanford University professor John Ioannidis was only posing as a science reformer. His commentary in PLoS against the EPA science transparency rulemaking validates that.

Now finally available in PDF format, here is my 1994 report on science policy that the Clinton Administration tried to suppress. You can use it to comment on the just proposed EPA science transparency rule.
