The No. 1 Problem in Science: Dishonesty

Here are some thoughts from an e-mail chain I was on today about reproducibility in science. Colleague #1 noted that, in some fields, as much as 80% of the published science was not reproducible. Colleague #2 countered that his worked showed the opposite was true. My thoughts that I shared with my colleagues:

[Colleague #1] said 80% percent in “many areas of science” — not 80% of all studies.

Environmental epidemiology is certainly one of the fields where that is true [i.e., 80% being not reproducible].

Yet, blanket statements concerning reproducibility are not really what’s important.

The problem in science is a pervasive lack of basic honesty among too many people. As it turns out, scientists lie just as much as everyone else.

Unfortunately, a lot of bad apples have been able to surf the reputations and accomplishments of the greats in science.

When non-scientists hear “scientist” they tend imagine Einstein or Pasteur — when they should really be imagining Madoff or Ponzi.

There is no permanent solution to this problem because it is the human condition.

The only solution is peers having the courage to speak out when needed. But lack of courage among people is the #2 problem in science after dishonesty.

Congressman asks EPA to obtain secret data from air quality mob

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

NYTimes refuses to publish letter critical of reporting on EPA ‘secret science’ rule

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

Democrats introduce bill for imposing CO2 tax on taxpayers

Here is the summary of the tax package. The bill orders the Treasury Department to figure out how to use EPA greenhouse gas inventory data to impose a CO2 tax on taxpayers.

The bill also extends wind/solar and electric vehicle tax credits.

Arctic melting to cause catastrophic sea level rise or… an ice age?

The contrasting views of apocalyptics circa 1947 vs. 1960. Useful to keep in mind as you consider today’s apocalyptic Arctic hysteria.

Continue reading Arctic melting to cause catastrophic sea level rise or… an ice age?

WINNING: EPA science advisers reject EPA staff particulate matter claims

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.

Latest EPA science transparency proposal leaked to NYTimes; Key air quality junk science to be banned unless data is made public

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.

Continue reading Latest EPA science transparency proposal leaked to NYTimes; Key air quality junk science to be banned unless data is made public