My comments just delivered to the EPA Science Advisory Board about their draft review letters concerning the Trump EPA proposals for rolling back the Obama fuel economy standards, the science transparency rule, the Mercury Air Toxics Standards rule and the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS).
My op-ed for InsideSources.com about our YUGE victory on PM2.5 at EPA.
EPA’s science advisory panel for air quality, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), has now officially trashed all the scary claims the agency has been making for the past 25 years about PM2.5 in outdoor air. The letter was transmitted to Administrator Andrew Wheeler yesterday. The future significance is that the PM2.5 air quality standards will NOT be tightening for the first time in a long while. It also means that the Obama war on coal rules were 100% scientifically bankrupt.
Continue reading TOTAL VICTORY: EPA science advisers trash EPA staff assessment of PM2.5 ‘science’
My oral testimony from today’s EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) meeting to finalize its letter trashing 25 years worth of EPA particulate matter junk science.
You may think that these folks…
… are merely stupid. In my view, they are entirely dishonest.
Here’s why.
Continue reading The manifest dishonesty of the air pollution mafia
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
