Coming off a partial trial court loss in September, the CASAC portion of Young v. EPA is being appealed. The question to be determined is: Did Congress authorize EPA to rig statutorily required external scientific peer review with agency grantee-cronies? This case will determine the outcome of the Biden regime’s efforts to backdoor regulate climate emissions through PM2.5 and ozone air quality standards. Stay tuned.
A shocking and disappointing decision in Young v. EPA. My comment: EPA clearly rigged its air quality science peer review with paid-off cronies. Congress never intended to allow EPA to rig scientific peer review when it wrote the Clean Air Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act. Another low for the federal judiciary.
Despite that Young v. EPA is pending, the corrupt Biden EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is recommending that EPA tighten the PM2.5 NAAQS. Read the E&E News report.
EPA released draft letters for CASAC to rubberstamp at meetings upcoming later this month and in early March. Here are the draft CASAC letters on PM2.5 science and policy. The only short-term hope for derailing this railroad of fraud is Young v. EPA, for which we are awaiting a decision at anytime.
Breathing any air is just too dangerous. So stop it. The EPA and auto/truck industry rentseeker-funded Health Effects Institute has a new study claiming that cleaner air increases the risk of death — see highlighted text below. Just shockingly dishonest and stupid. As always, all you need to know about the PM2.5 hoax is contained in Scare Pollution. The fraudulent study and related HEI links are here. We are still awaiting the decision in Young v. EPA which could prevent EPA from using this fraud to justify more PM2.5-based regulation.
After 30+ years of study, observation and experience, I can say with confidence that there is little intersection between government “science” and scientific integrity. That the Biden administration would issue a report (Web | PDF) on science integrity in the wake of COVID and the EPA science advisor massacre is pure hubris. Nonetheless, there is one part of the report that entirely validates the plaintiff’s case in the ongoing Young v. EPA lawsuit.
Continue reading Biden scientific integrity report validates Young v. EPA
China seems to have made substantial progress in cutting PM2.5 levels in Beijing. Has this made a difference in Beijing mortality rates? EPA PM2.5 ‘science’ says it should. We report. You decide.
Continue reading New air quality data from China don’t support EPA claim that PM2.5 kills
The Wall Street Journal editorializes on the Young v. EPA lawsuit. (Web | PDF). The amended complaint is here. Here is more previous media coverage of the lawsuit: Washington Times | Legal Insurrection | Daily Signal | Report Door | Epoch Times | Reuters | Law360 | National Review | Daily Caller | Bloomberg Law | Fox News
The EPA’s CASAC PM subpanel voted last week to advise the EPA administrator to tighten the PM2.5 standards. The final advisory decision is now elevated to the main CASAC panel — most of the members of which are also on the subpanel. So the vote is basically predetermined. The only thing that can stop this is Young v. EPA lawsuit. Court argument scheduled for Dec. 22. Background on the EPA PM2.5 railroad.
Below is my testimony at today’s public meeting of EPA’s CASAC PM subpanel concerning EPA’s updated assessment of PM2.5 science. Not surprisingly, the EPA air pollution mafia declined my challenge to point out where I was wrong… because I’m not. Former UCLA epidemiologist Jim Enstrom also provided great comments. They are here. EPA’s CASAC PM subpanel failed to ask Enstrom any questions about his testimony either. Please support JunkScience.com!
Continue reading Milloy to EPA CASAC PM Subpanel: EPA’s assessment of PM2.5 is science fraud
The EPA’s draft PM2.5 policy assessment update claims that at low levels, the PM2.5 dose-response curve is supralinear for fatal heart attacks (see image below) — meaning that cleaner air actually kills people. So stupid. There is not a substance known to toxicology where the dose-response curve shows that lower exposure is more dangerous than higher exposure. The odds are zero that PM2.5 is the first.
