Comments for JunkScience.com https://junkscience.com All the junk that’s fit to debunk. Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:26:07 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8 Comment on Are the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health Dishonest or Just Incompetent? by Carl https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122279 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:26:07 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122279 Perhaps a “healthy diet” is defined by what an “unhealthy diet” is:

– Arsenic
– Cyanide
– High concentration HCl
– Plutonium

]]>
Comment on A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA by dennisambler https://junkscience.com/2017/07/a-step-toward-scientific-integrity-at-the-epa/#comment-8317976315264122277 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:20:58 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92160#comment-8317976315264122277 Another example of outside influence was the extensive use by the EPA of Stratus Consulting, conveniently based at Boulder, down the road from NCAR. One of the principals was a guy called Joel Smith, in charge of their climate change division.

He edited the EPA Technical Support Document for the EPA Endangerment Finding, with a colleague from Stratus.

This is how the EPA described it:

“This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.

The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.” (At that time, Lisa Jackson)

Smith was an IPCC Lead author for TAR and AR4 WGII chapters and
A Lead Author on the Summary for Policy Makers for bothTAR and AR4. He was also Lead author for the U.S. National Assessment on climate change impacts and technical coordinator on vulnerability and adaptation for the U.S. Country Studies Program.

Yet Joel Smith is not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy. He put his name to a February 2011 “Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act”, which concluded,

“The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth.”

Smith worked for the EPA from 1984 to 1992, where he was the deputy director of the Climate Change Division, an analyst for oceans and water regulations, and a special assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.

Stratus was heavily involved in the EPA websites, including the EPA home page, EPA’s environmental education web sites and EPA’s High School Environmental Center

It seems Smith has now joined another outfit which also has extensive contracts with the EPA and other government agencies and clicking on previous Stratus links now takes me to these people:

http://www.abtassociates.com/About-Us/Our-People/Associates/Joel-B-Smith.aspx

http://www.abtassociates.com/environment.aspx
“Our clients include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coast Guard, and Department of Energy, as well as other federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-profit organizations.

Abt also works across the globe. Our international environment and climate change projects are funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, foreign ministries, and select private sector clients.”

http://abtassociates.com/Practice-Areas/Climate-Change
“We construct the building blocks of low emission, climate-resilient communities by analyzing, designing, securing financing for, and implementing evidence-based interventions using innovative solutions and proven best practices.”

Let’s hope they come under Scott Pruitt’s microscope.

]]>
Comment on A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA by Eliza https://junkscience.com/2017/07/a-step-toward-scientific-integrity-at-the-epa/#comment-8317976315264122268 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:27:22 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92160#comment-8317976315264122268 Great keep it up

]]>
Comment on A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA by Rog. L https://junkscience.com/2017/07/a-step-toward-scientific-integrity-at-the-epa/#comment-8317976315264122267 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 20:12:42 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92160#comment-8317976315264122267 More great work, S.M.
Now you’re getting more publication in the reputable MSM your revelations must soon start to grab the attention of influential people in other countries and arouse doubt about the loony-greeny dogma which has prevailed everywhere for the past few decades……

]]>
Comment on A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA by ScienceABC123 https://junkscience.com/2017/07/a-step-toward-scientific-integrity-at-the-epa/#comment-8317976315264122254 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:53:26 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92160#comment-8317976315264122254 Good, there is no such thing as a scientist with a political agenda.

]]>
Comment on A Step Toward Scientific Integrity at the EPA by Craig King https://junkscience.com/2017/07/a-step-toward-scientific-integrity-at-the-epa/#comment-8317976315264122247 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:15:58 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92160#comment-8317976315264122247 Well said Steve. Cleaning things up in the EPA is a process not an event but Scott Pruitt is certainly up to the task.

]]>
Comment on History Channel Amelia Earhart program debunks Marshall Islands sea level rise claim by adam https://junkscience.com/2017/07/history-channel-amelia-earhart-program-debunks-marshall-islands-sea-level-rise-claim/#comment-8317976315264122245 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:24:38 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92139#comment-8317976315264122245 I remember watching one originally made in the 70s which was looking at some markings on a rock in Scandanavia. they had something to do with the original sea level and it distinctly said there was no evidence at all that sea level had risen in the 20th century so the rock itself must have moved.

wouldnt get that today. every other doc i have seen since says sea levels have risen. so they must have been wrong back then.

]]>
Comment on Are the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health Dishonest or Just Incompetent? by Yaakov Haimovich https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122223 Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:37:30 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122223 Dishonest.

]]>
Comment on History Channel Amelia Earhart program debunks Marshall Islands sea level rise claim by My2Yen https://junkscience.com/2017/07/history-channel-amelia-earhart-program-debunks-marshall-islands-sea-level-rise-claim/#comment-8317976315264122222 Sun, 16 Jul 2017 08:52:37 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92139#comment-8317976315264122222 A Japanese study determined over 40% of the supposedly rise in ocean levels was due to pumping up water from subterranean seas and other ancient ground water sources.
https://phys.org/news/2012-05-climate-scientists-riddle-sea.html

]]>
Comment on Are the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health Dishonest or Just Incompetent? by Nikhil Desai https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122216 Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:16:50 +0000 https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122216 The basic problem here is simply that “premature mortality” is not the same as “mortality”. Mortality is individual and has “cause(s) of death”, which is always a proximate link to one or more events or disease. Premature mortality is a population attribute, aggregated for a cause – as reported or as concocted – and is in turn attributed (pardon the irony) to “risk factors”.

Read the Global Burden of Disease reports. They apply the power of algorithms and computing to make up causes of death, then distribute the blame to risk factors. There is NO claim that “risk factors” are causes.

Attributability is not causality, and attributable is not avoidable. EPA and public health ideologues abuse language in order to create hysteria. That no PM2.5 is “safe”, while the question is, what is safe enough for risk of a particular disease profile, given that there are many sources of PM2.5?

]]>