The invalid assumptions that drive EPA 'science'
EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, in a recent speech said, “we’re coming after you” in discussing criticism of EPA science from some members of Congress and so called conservative groups. Her remarks were in response of efforts to obtain studies on which the agency has based some of its regulatory actions.I don't trust her or the agency. To regain trust they are going to have to produce the documents and quit trying to hide them. Many of the basic assumption behind the global warming "science" have been shown to be invalid, yet they continue to torture the data and push illusory "solutions."
If it wasn’t for the recent experience of the IRS targeting or the Justice Department’s unprecedented seizure of telephone communication of AP reporters, her remarks might be dismissed as just carelessness. Maybe she had just watched the Godfather or similar gangster movie.
In her remarks, she said, “Science is real and verifiable,” she said. “With the health of our families and our futures at stake, the American people expect us to act on the facts, not spend precious time and taxpayer money refuting manufactured uncertainties.” She claims that the reports in question have been peer reviewed as if that makes them beyond criticism. The studies supporting cold fusion a few decades ago and the infamous “hockey Stick” also had been peer reviewed.
Instead of issuing threats, Ms. Terminator McCarthy could simply release the reports for review. If they are that good surely they would withstand close scrutiny. The problem is that many of these studies while carefully done are based on assumptions for which there is no scientific foundation. Two of those assumptions are linear dose response and the one hit
Model. The first is that there is a linear relationship between the dose of a toxin or carcinogen and its harmful effects. There is very little credible data on the adverse health effects of very low doses while there is data showing that low doses of poisons like arsenic which is found in nature have no harmful effects. The second assumption is the one-hit model that holds that one molecule of a carcinogen can cause cancer. Again, it is an assumption, and a very conservative one at that.
EPA science is driven by environmental extremes and the scientists that the agency supports tend to agree with its political philosophy. For decades, EPA has held that air pollution is the primary cause of asthma. While no one disputes that air pollution can aggravate asthma, the agency’s underlying assumption has not been validated and is contradicted by the fact that asthma rates have increased as air quality has improved. Would Ms. McCarthy support dirtier air to reduce asthma rates?