Today’s hero in the fight against secret science is Rep. Bill Posey (Fla-8). As Rep. Posey notes in his letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler: “That this data remains secret while these regulations cited above remain largely in place is deeply disturbing.” A fantastic, clear-cut letter. Check it out.
Continue reading Congressman asks EPA to obtain secret data from air quality mob
My recent column at the DailySignal.com.
Continue reading You’ll Be Surprised Who Is Trying to Empower the Deep State at EPA
In response to the New York Times recent front-page report on EPA’s coming re-proposal of its ‘secret science/transparency rule, Stan Young and Warren Kindzierski submitted the letter below, which was rejected by the Times. We present it here as an example of the reality denied to readers of the “paper of record.”
To the editor:
“E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules” fails to mention the science that supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. For example, a 2014 study examined more than 2 million emergency hospital admissions and more than 600,000 deaths from heart disease in England and Wales. A 2017 California study looked at all death certificates for the years 2000-2012 (data public since 2015). Neither study found an association of air quality with deaths. Yet data from the Six Cities study, which claims an association, is not publicly available. Since the publicly available data casts doubt on previous studies that inform our air pollution regulations, the E.P.A. is entirely justified to propose requiring that the science informing regulations should have analysis data sets that are publicly available, or available to a trusted third party. If the science behind the regulations is any good, public scrutiny will confirm it. If that science doesn’t reproduce, the E.P.A. should know—as should all Americans.
S. Stanley Young
Warren Kindzierski
University of Alberta
Here is the draft letter from the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concerning the EPA staff’s most recent junk science-based assessment of the health effects of air borne particulate matter. A majority of the CASAC rejected the EPA staff’s claims that PM is scientifically associated with premature mortality and other health effects. In other words, after spending $600 million on PM2.5 research, EPA has nothing.
You can read the October 2019 testimony of JunkScience.com and friends to CASAC here.
Here it is. Please review and send me your thoughts. Supposedly this is what will be sent to the White House for review and approval.
EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) voted 4-2 last week to advise EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler that the existing air quality standards for particulate matter (PM) do NOT need to be tightened.
Continue reading WINNING… EPA CASAC panel votes to leave PM standards alone
The (resistance) EPA staff continues to insist that particulate matter in outdoor air kills people. Today the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) took public comment on EPA’ most recent scientific assessment. Below are my (killer) oral comments that explain the entire PM fraud in five minutes.
Continue reading Milloy presentation to EPA CASAC re claim that PM kills
I’m not surprised. The EPA IG is corrupt. JunkScience.com readers will recall, for example, the EPA IG whitewash of EPA’s illegal human testing. BTW, who puts the conclusion in the title of an IG report?
Continue reading Dirty Deeds: EPA Inspector General Whitewashes Rogue Testing of Glider Trucks
Find out what a $10 million grant from the Obama administration can produce.
Continue reading Obama EPA grantees attempt to railroad Trump EPA on PM2.5
“Steve Milloy, who runs JunkScience.com, a website focused on undermining climate science, helped write EPA’s science playbook as a member of Trump’s transition team.”
You can’t fire federal employees very easily. But you can reassign them. Christopher Grundler, the EPA official in charge of the office involved in the rigged testing of glider trucks is being reassigned to other duty.
Continue reading WINNING: EPA official involved in rigged glider truck testing reassigned
“This historical evaluation suggests that the EPA did not want to have its hands tied or its scientific image affected by statements from the 1960 BEAR Genetics and Medicine Panels that there was too much uncertainty to estimate cancer risk in the low dose zone. Their comments were simply ignored and swept under the regulatory rug.”
