The same crew that published the scientific misconduct-fueled PM2.5 study in the New England Journal of Medicine last summer has now published a new scientific misconduct-fueled study based on the same Medicare data in the Journal of the American Medical Association. You can tell that JunkScience.com forced the authors to be somewhat more candid in … Continue reading Harvard’s perpetual PM2.5 junk science machine strikes again
The EPA human experiments controversy is now over. As between choosing whether EPA committed multiple felonies vs. lying to the Congress/public about PM2.5 killing people, the National Academy of Sciences has chosen the “lying’ option. Total victory achieved.
Stanford researchers close in on realities JunkScience.com exposed decades ago. But there is one important note to make here.
Just wow…
What is “junk science”? Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. Examples of special interests include: The media may use junk science to produce sensational headlines and programming, the purpose of which is to generate increased readership and viewership. More readers and viewers mean more revenues … Continue reading Junk Science?
This is an easy one. Carbon as a product of burning fossil fuels is a positive. Greenie antagonism is insane. Thanks Driessen and Bezdek
The last lead smelter in America is closing.
Federal regulations require that allegations of scientific misconduct be thoroughly investigated. But Hugh Tilson, editor-in-chief of the NIEHS journal Environmental Health Perspectives only thoroughly stonewalled us in the EPA human testing scandal involving “killer” airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We have elevated the matter to the Office of Research Integrity.
The MSM finally picks up on our report of EPA deleting records of its grants to Gleick.
Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.) probes EPA about grants to Peter Gleick.
Will the insurance companies that MIT’s Kerry Emanuel works for benefit from his latest ‘study’?
Sens. Jim Inhofe and David Vitter today today said that a report by the GAO confirms that EPA’s IRIS program is flawed and that the agency is not basing its decisions on the best available science.