More on EPA misconduct and bad science–an analysis of the junk

John Graham’s well regarded paper on the problems of EPA research is linked below.

Before I start I would point out that Graham in now at a big midwestern state U but was in a White Office Charged with controlling the EPA, which is out of control.

Recently he testified that science at the EPA was still immature and needed to mature–and he is full of it–the ?EPa is an organized cargo cult gang, in epidemiology, toxicology and economics.

The EPA has no excuse, but Graham couldn’t tell the truth.

For starters on this article, the cover pic is agit prop to scare the stupid.

That is a steam cloud, note that it dissipates very quickly by 300 feet going straight up. One other trick they do is to take pictures in a dim light of dawn or dusk–makes the plume look very ominous. Watch and see, its a standard pic for all energy/enviro articles in mags and newspapers, then point it out to your friends. Steam in a dim light looks more like smoke.

Another trick these charlatans like to do is show a pic of a refinery and pretend it’s an energy plant.

One time I was traveling on Highway 59 into Oklahoma and came over a hill and there in the middle of the country was this big building with plume coming out of stacks–I had to turn around and watch–then realized those impressive plumes were steam–not smoke and it was a blessed energy plant providing efficient electricity for the people of OK south of McAlester. Beautiful Oklahoma, but damn they have harsh weather.

Smoke, as you may remember from when it was smoke, real smoke–would tail off for miles, not rise and disappear.

Steam be good for you, not a pollutant and the enviros refuse to recognize it is the most important Green House Gas, but climate and weather people will tell you that water and its state changes, create tremendously beneficial feedbacks to stabilize the temperature of the planet. Rising columns of hot air turn condensed and cool and fall and the cycle repeats.

That’s why there is ceiling for the high temp in tropical humid places, but no ceiling in the desert. Sure albedo and terrain are a factor, but humidity is a real damper on hot hot because evaporation causes convection and absorbs heat.

You knew that, but enviro warmers ignore it. Willis Eschenbach and William Gray can wax eloquent on the venting effect of thunderstorms that is a magnification of the evaporation and condensation effects. They are like big columns of humid air rushing up and then falling as precip, all the while creating tremendous energy because heat is energy, energy is heat. Differences in heat and energy create forces.

It’s like a basic rule good meterologists and climate meisters tell us amateurs–warming causes mitigation of severe conditions becuase it reduces the differences in temps of air masses.

Think that might a factor in the reductions of hurricanes and tornadoes recently? MAYBE?

http://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/uncertainty-cost-effectiveness-federal-air-quality-regulations

Advertisements

3 responses to “More on EPA misconduct and bad science–an analysis of the junk

  1. What number ($) does EPA use for the value of a “premature death” prevented? I must be a search dummy because I have been unable to find it. And, it would seem logical to prorate that value relative to normal (statistical) life expectancy. Does EPA do that?
    Also, how does the “premature death prevented” value for a 40 year-old MD compare with that of a 70 year-old Walmart greeter?
    Intuitively, the MD is more valuable, but if the “social cost” of healthcare is considered the death of the 40 y.o. MD avoids many more years of healthcare costs than the death of the 70 y.o. Are these avoided “social costs” also a “social benefit?” Are they, or should they be, in EPA’s determination of the value of a “premature death prevented?”
    This and how EPA determines whether a death is premature or not are real puzzles, but I suspect that EPA numbers and methods are unrealistic and unjustifiable.

  2. I saw 5 million a few years ago, but they use 10 million now as for the Clean Power Plan. I rely on Milloy, who has the patience to read those big regulatory bundles.

    • Sounds like an arbitrary number; and a fixed, universal value is obviously inappropriate.
      When I was in school (slide rule era), OSHA had assigned values for various industrial accidents: loss of one eye, loss of both eyes, loss of one hand and one eye, etc. The value for death was, I believe $1,000,000. But these values were primarily for use in determining penalties, and have certainly been adjusted for inflation, etc. I haven’t seen much (anything?) explaining how EPA determines value or their definition of “premature deaths.”
      I too have relied (somewhat) on Mr. Milloy’s research and explanations for most of the subjects covered here (at JS), especially GHGs, Global Warming, and PM2.5, but I am unaware of his work on this topic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s