Category: Uncategorized

EPA’s Suspect Science 

EPA’s Suspect Science 

via Ice Age Now
http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3


“EPA’s analysis is a dishonest, purposeful scam …. Is it ignorance? malignance? eco-professional propaganda? Yes, yes, and yes.”
– John Rafuse

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been roundly criticized in recent years for numerous errors of omission and commission, for secret email accounts designed to hide questionable official dealings and activities, and for being increasingly dictatorial in implementing policies that are often rooted in highly “liberal” interpretations of federal laws and scientific research. What many people don’t realize is that problems like these have plagued the agency since its inception in 1970.

Energy and environmental consultant John Rafuse presents some of the unsavory details in this fascinating article.

____________________________________________

EPA’s Suspect science 

Its practices have defiled scientific integrity, but proposed corrections bring shock and defiance

By John Rafuse

President Trump’s budget guidance sought to cut $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency’s $8.1 billion expectation. Shrieks of looming Armageddon prompted Congress to fund EPA in full until September 2017, when the battle will be joined again.

Then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said he would prioritize Superfund cleanups based on toxicity, health-impact and other factors. The ensuing caterwauling suggested that EPA had no priorities since Bill Ruckelshaus (EPA’s first administrator, 1970-1975). But consider some standard EPA practices:

  1. 1. EPA advocates claim the US is unhealthy and dirty. They won’t admit that US water quality has improved dramatically since 1970. They deny that factories, cars and power plants are far more efficient and clean. They ignore that, while most nations continue to cut down forest habitats for fuel, the Lower 48 states have more forest coverage than when the Pilgrims landed in 1620.

They never mention that the US did not sign the 1992 Kyoto Accord, nor that it is the only nation to meet its Kyoto targets. Is it ignorance? malignance? eco-professional propaganda? Yes, yes, and yes.

The U.S. is one of the cleanest, healthiest nations on earth

The United States is one of the cleanest, healthiest nations on earth. Our progress will continue because we rejected the Paris Accord and thus will not cripple our economy, jobs or environmental progress. Other nations must work hard to catch us. They may work hard, but they won’t catch up, and they’ll blame us.

  1. Eco-militants at EPA tricked the Supreme Court into letting it label plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide a pollutant. Meanwhile, professional enviros demand “zero tolerance” for pollutants – because they claim “any dose kills.”

CO2 is not a pollutant

However, CO2 is plant fertilizer, the trace gas that makes plant and animal life possible on our planet. Atmospheric CO2 is just 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04% of the air we breathe, compared to 21% oxygen and almost 1% argon.  Classrooms average 1,000 to 2,000 ppm; US nuclear submarines average 5,000 to 8,000ppm. We inhale 400 ppm and exhale 40,000 to 50,000 ppm.

That means 100 to 125 times the “fatal dose” of a “zero tolerance pollutant” is always in our lungs.  We don’t die, because CO2 is not a pollutant and because real scientists know that dosage, not microscopic presence, is the key.

EPA keeps cheating

EPA keeps cheating, but dosage always determines poisonous impact. In fact, EPA experiments illegally exposed human test subjects to 10 and even 30 times the levels of fine soot particles that EPA claims are lethal. No one got sick or died, and yet EPA continues its “standards” and lies.

  1. DDT saved millions in World War II from death by typhus. By 1970 DDT had helped wipe out malaria in 99 countries, including the USA. Administrator Ruckelshaus appointed a scientific committee to examine claims that the pesticide caused cancer and other problems. The experts said it did not, because dosage determines effect.

Ruckelshaus ignored them, never attended a minute of their hearings, never read a page of their extensive report. He simply banned DDT in 1972.  He later said he had a “political problem” due to Rachel Carson’s misinformed book Silent Spring and pressure from the Environmental Defense Fund, and he needed to “fix it.”

Other nations followed suit, banning DDT. Since 1972, some 40 million children and parents have needlessly died from malaria. Today DDT is partially reinstated, but P.A. Offit, Pandora’s Lab, Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong, quotes Michael Crichton, MD: “Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in twentieth century America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die, and we didn’t give a damn.”

EPA’s analysis a dishonest, purposeful scam

  1. EPA knowingly relies on fake science. Data from point-source “pollution” are used to “project” thousands of asthma cases and cancer deaths. EPA “validates” the analyses by “assuming” that each projected death and illness happened to someone who had spent every second of a 70-year life at the point-source – within 6 feet of the measurement point. But Newton’s Law of Inverse Squares proves that dosage wanes by the inverse square of the distance; 5 units of distance cuts dosage impact to 1/25 what it was at its source. At 10 units, the impact is 1/100th.  EPA’s analysis is a dishonest, purposeful scam.

The 70-year/6-foot/no-movement assumption makes a joke of all its calculations and projections. EPA has relied on that scam for decades to “prove” need for a non-scientific regulatory remedy for every newly invented threat.

  1. EPA colludes with professional environmentalists to “fix” “inadequate” draft regulations. EPA then “settles” cases, pays co-conspirators’ fees with taxpayer funds and wins excessive regulatory powers it sought from the beginning. Parties who oppose the decision never get a day in court, and the “sue-and-settle” cases ensure high costs but provide no health or environmental benefits.
  2. EPA covers up crimes. As the auto industry cratered since 2000, Flint, Michigan has lost 25,000 citizens and become poorer and more minority. The 2010 Census Report concluded that 42% of the population was in a “level of poverty and health … not comparable to other geographic levels of these estimates.” Yet EPA (and state and local authorities) did nothing to protect them. What happened?

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act delegated compliance to EPA, which typically approves a State Compliance Plan, re-delegates authority, and oversees State and local enforcement. Flint’s drinking water has been lead-poisoned for three years – ever since state and local officials switched water sources to save money with no hearings, approvals or notifications to EPA or affected citizens.

Drinking, tasting and smelling nauseating newly-brown water alerted residents to potential dangers. An EPA expert tested the water in 2014 and wrote repeated warnings to Agency officials. A February 2015 Detroit News report said EPA’s Regional Administrator knew the facts but claimed her “hands were tied.”

Then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy forbade the staff expert from meeting, writing or speaking about the issue, and reassigned him.  Thus the two most senior and directly responsible EPA officials “washed their hands” of the problem.

But Flint Medical Center tested for lead in the water and sounded the alarm. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added powerful voices. Flint’s mayor and Michigan’s governor took heat until the state’s attorney general initially charged five Flint and Michigan officials with wrongful issuance of permits, and tampering, altering and falsifying evidence. That has now expanded to more than 50 criminal charges against 15 state officials; including one of involuntary manslaughter (an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease took 12 lives).

The two “clean-handed” EPA officials kept mum until June 12, 2016, when Gina McCarthy wrote to Michigan’s governor and Flint’s mayor. Citing “major challenges” and her “long-term” clean water goal, she blamed state and local staffs and old and (newly) over-large piping. She said EPA had no money to help. Will Michigan’s AG indict EPA officials involved in the EPA cover-ups?  That would be logical, but don’t bet on it.

McCarthy’s was a nasty letter from a culpable official. Later in 2016, Congress voted $110 million to repair Flint’s drinking water, no thanks to EPA. The work will go on for years as Flint residents get bottled water from EPA and the state.

President Trump’s budget guidance exposed decades-old EPA abuses. The evidence exposes EPA’s lack of mission, commitment and integrity. If EPA would use honest, evidence-based science to protect the nation’s health, it would be a welcome and long overdue change – perhaps a miracle. What’s your bet?

Independent consultant John Rafuse worked for government agencies, a think-tank and an international oil and gas company on energy, trade, environmental, regulatory and national security issues.   


 

 

The post EPA’s Suspect Science  appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now http://ift.tt/2qcAwB3

June 22, 2017 at 01:05PM

Norway To Carry On Drilling

Norway To Carry On Drilling

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

 

h/t Patsy Lacey

  

Apparently Norway don’t read Ambrose Evans-Pritchard!

image

Norway on Wednesday proposed to open up a record number of blocks in the Barents Sea to oil exploration despite protests from environmentalists and others fearing possible damage to the Arctic region.

The Norwegian oil and energy ministry offered oil companies 93 blocks in the Barents Sea and nine others in the Norwegian Sea, all located beyond the Arctic Circle.

"New (KOSDAQ: 160550.KQnews) exploration acreage promotes long-term activity, value creation and profitable employment in the petroleum industry across the country," Energy Minister Terje Soviknes, a member of the right-wing government, said in a statement.

Public bodies such as the Norwegian Environment Agency, the Directorate of Fisheries and the Norwegian Polar Institute had opposed the opening of several dozens of these blocks, wary of their proximity to the sea ice and the effect of disruptive surveying techniques on valuable fish stocks, among other things.

"This shows that Norway’s government has no respect for the climate goals they signed onto in the Paris agreement," the head of Greenpeace Norway, Truls Gulowsen said, referring to the 2015 COP21 accord aiming to keep global warming to under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels.

"The blocks offered are for the most part extremely far north in very fragile areas … but also very expensive to exploit, so it is in all regards oil that should remain underground," he told AFP.

Along with another non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace is already suing the Norwegian state to protest last year’s allocation of other areas in the region for oil exploration. The trial is to begin on November 14.

Norsk Olje og Gass, an organisation representing the oil industry, meanwhile welcomed the government’s announcement, saying it would bring "enormous value to Norwegian society".

The largest producer of black gold in Western Europe, Norway has seen its production halved since the early 2000s.

According to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the Barents Sea contains about two-thirds of the nation’s remaining resources.

Companies have until November 30 to submit their applications, with licenses expected to be awarded in the first half of 2018.

http://ift.tt/2sVJcQH

 

Perhaps contrary to common misperception, Norway produces virtually no renewable energy, if hydro is excluded (which of course they have had for a very long time):

image

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

June 22, 2017 at 01:03PM

WaPo Points Out Flaws With Solar Power After Trump Suggests Putting Panels On The Border Wall

WaPo Points Out Flaws With Solar Power After Trump Suggests Putting Panels On The Border Wall

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

The Washington Post is very skeptical of President Donald Trump’s proposal to cover the U.S.-Mexico border wall he’s promised to build with solar panels.

The paper was quick to point to past reporting on the pitfalls of using solar panels to help pay for a border wall. It’s a big turn from WaPo’s usually positive stance on solar panels as a way to fight global warming.

“And I’ll give you an idea that nobody has heard about yet,” Trump said at a rally in Iowa Wednesday night.

“We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall, so it creates energy, and pays for itself,” Trump said. “And this way Mexico will have to pay much less money, and that’s good.”

“Pretty good imagination, right? Good? My idea,” Trump said.

WaPo rightfully points out the idea wasn’t likely Trump’s own. Las Vegas businessman Thomas Gleason submitted a bid to the Department of Homeland Security in April to top the 2,000-mile border wall with solar panels.

Gleason said this could be done cheaply and would pay for itself in under 20 years. Axios reported earlier this month that Trump pitched the solar panel idea to congressional leaders in a closed-door meeting, though it’s not clear how serious he was.

Now, with media reports abounding on his solar wall suggestion, Trump has publicly backed the idea. WaPo used the opportunity to highlight the pitfalls of putting solar panels atop of border wall.

WaPo’s Dino Grandoni wrote that “experts who have taken the solar-paneled border wall proposal seriously say such a structure would have significant issues.”

“Vertically fixed panels could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent,” Grandoni wrote, referring to a Financial Times article from February.

Grandoni also pointed to a past WaPo report by Sophie Yeo, which noted that “solar panels degrade over time” and the “requirements dictated by the security aspects of the border wall — bricks and spray paint, for example — could further reduce efficiency.”

Read more at Daily Caller

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

June 22, 2017 at 12:57PM

The American Meteorological Society @ametsoc falls into the consensus trap in a letter to Rick Perry

The American Meteorological Society @ametsoc falls into the consensus trap in a letter to Rick Perry

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) published a letter yesterday to U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, admonishing him for having the temerity to doubt that carbon dioxide is the “primary driver” of global warming.

Here is the text of the letter.


Here are a few of my thoughts.

The AMS, in their letter, say skepticism is welcome:

In the interview you also mentioned that it should be quite acceptable to be a skeptic about aspects of the science. We agree, and would add that skepticism and debate are always welcome and are critically important to the advancement of science.

Yet, the very letter they sent contradicts this, suggesting that there is no debate nor room for skepticism about carbon dioxide being the primary driver of temperature change.

The fundamental problem of our knowledge boils down to the sample size. We only have about 100 or so years of temperature records that are worth anything and even the most recent records on all that good because they’re terribly polluted by the infrastructure of human existence itself. And further our understanding of atmospheric and oceanic cycles is even more limited in time than that in a case.

If you were to line up our period of first-hand scientific knowledge of Earth’s processes, against the period of humanity’s intelligence, it would just be a small speck on the timeline. To assume we have certainty in knowledge about Earth’s processes, when new processes are still be discovered, is pure folly.

Even today, we are discovering more about our atmosphere than we knew 30 years ago in June 1988 when Dr. James Hansen first declared it a problem, and there are studies that show that recent record breaking warmth, such as a paper just published in Nature, Yao et al.

Distinct global warming rates tied to multiple ocean surface temperature changes.

 covered

here

on WUWT.

For the AMS to admonish Perry that there’s no room for debate on Carbon Dioxide as being the primary driver, is essentially to deny the process of science itself. Science is often wrong, but just as often, it is self-correcting. If global warming hadn’t become such an entangled and messy social and political issue, it’s likely that science would have done some levels of self-correction on the issue already.

For example, it was once believed that the Earth’s plates did not move, until plate tectonics came along. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912, but it took until the 1960’s for it to become generally accepted.  Science self-corrected, but it took decades because scientists are often reluctant to embrace change which threatens the validiity of their own work. It was also generally believed that stress caused stomach ulcers, until a clinician, exasperated by lack of attention to his pointing out that the real cause was the bacterium Heliobacter Pylorii infecting the stomach lining, and to prove it against the consensus, drank a bacterial cocktail. He won the Nobel prize for defying that consensus.

Science that fails to account for the possibility of being wrong is of no virtue.

The AMS should lead in science by setting an example, by showing that even in the face of overwhelming consensus on an issue, there must be room for doubt, and thus room for self-correcting science. It only takes one finding in science to refute consensus, no matter whether it’s 97%, 99%, or 100%. Science is not infallible.

Anthony Watts

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 22, 2017 at 12:11PM