The latest (EPA-funded) PM2.5 horror story is that PM2.5 from farm emissions kills 17,000 people per year. Thanks to PM2.5 science fraud, you can now even figure out just how “deadly” the food you eat is. Please support JunkScience.com!
My latest in the Washington Times.
Good to see. But I had to edit the article title.
My column at CNSNews.com. (Web | PDF)
My comments from today’s public testimony before EPA on its proposed cost-benefit overhaul. On a comical note, the enviro woman who testified before me criticized EPA for taking comments over the phone vs. by video… because phone testimony prevented EPA staff from seeing her tears and prevented her from seeing that EPA staff was being … Continue reading Milloy testifies to EPA on proposed cost-benefit analysis revamp
My latest at RealClearEnergy.org.
Jim Enstrom has driven the PM2.5 mafia so crazy, it has now composed a saga about him. Read the story at InsideClimateNews.com (Web | PDF).
In its “report” of the the Trump EPA’s decision not to tighten PM2.5 standards, the Washington Post ran this photo: But…
So the Trump administration finally finished rolling back the pointlessly expensive and impossible-to-achieve 2012 Obama administration fuel economy standards. Great. But did EPA staff sabotage the rulemaking to favor certain legal challenge by environmentalists? You betcha.
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.
About the new PM2.5-kills study debunked here yesterday, former UCLA epidemiologist and JunkScience.com ally Jim Enstrom tells me: “BMJ asked me to review the manuscript for this paper in January. I gave BMJ a SUPER-NEGATIVE nine-page review. BMJ is supposed to show the peer-review history of all research papers, but the Peer Review link for … Continue reading British Medical Journal hides peer review critical of new air quality study