“EPA Concedes: We Can’t Produce All the Data Justifying Clean Air Rules”
Because saying “we lied, and it worked, and now we control just about every aspect of the progressive plan to ‘de-grow’ the private sector,” is just a bit too candid. CNS NEWS:
Seven months after being subpoenaed by Congress, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy conceded that her agency does not have – and cannot produce – all of the scientific data used for decades to justify numerous rules and regulations under the Clean Air Act.
In a March 7th letter to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), McCarthy admitted that EPA cannot produce all of the original data from the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (HSC) and the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) 1995 Cancer Prevention Study II, which is currently housed at New York University.
Both studies concluded that fine airborne particles measuring 2.5 micrograms or less (PM2.5) – 1/30th the diameter of a human hair – are killing thousands of Americans every year.
These epidemiological studies are cited by EPA as the scientific foundation for clean air regulations that restrict particulate emissions from vehicles, power plants and factories.
The agency has recently come under fire for exposing volunteers to concentrated levels of particulate matter without informing them of the risks, a practice Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, called “despicable.”
The full committee, which issued its first subpoena in 21 years last August after being stonewalled by the EPA for two years, wanted the raw data from the studies so that their results could be replicated by independent researchers. (See EPA subpoena.pdf)
However, despite “multiple interactions with the third party owners of the research data in an effort to obtain that data,” McCarthy wrote, some of the data subpoenaed by the committee “are not (and were not) in the possession, custody or control of the EPA, nor are they within the authority to obtain data that the agency identified.”
“EPA has not withheld any data in our possession that is responsive to the subpoena,” McCarthy stated. “The EPA acknowledges, however, that the data provided are not sufficient in themselves to replicate the analyses in the epidemiological studies, nor would they allow for the one to one mapping of each pollutant and ecological variable to each subject.” (See EPA letter to Smith March 7 2014 (1).pdf)
CNSNews.com asked EPA whether the agency had turned over any data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies in response to the subpoena.
A committee staff member confirmed to CNSNews.com that “EPA gave us what they have of both studies, which is a significant amount of data, but not sufficient” to allow independent reproduction or verification of results.
“We’re at a point where EPA has conceded that they don’t have in their possession the data necessary to fully comply, and in some cases, never did possess the data,” he added.
The subpoena was issued as the EPA moves to finalize strict new regulations that could place 90 percent of the U.S. population in non-attainment areas and impose an additional $90 billion annual burden on the U.S. economy.
However, two newer studies cast doubts on the original research.
Stanley Young and Jessie Xia of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences published a paper last year questioning the EPA’s reliance on the Harvard and Cancer Society studies, both of which found that breathing fine particulate matter (PM2.5) resulted in increased mortality.
“There is no significant association of PM2.5 with longevity in the west of the United States,”Young and Xia noted, adding that “our findings call into question the claim made by the original researchers.” (See young080113.pdf)
Another recent study by Johns Hopkins-trained biostatistician Steve Milloy that attempted to duplicate EPA’s findings also found “no correlation between changes in ambient PM2.5 mortality” and any cause of death in California between 2007 and 2010.
“Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims,” committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in February, denouncing what he called EPA’s “secret science.”
“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims.”
Smith and Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) have introduced the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which would prohibit EPA from “proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations based upon scientific information that is not publically available in a manner sufficient for independent scientific analysis.”
HR 4012, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, states that “the Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
Congress is expected to review the bill this summer, and it’s something that we as conservatives and classical liberals should make sure gets passed by a unified GOP vote in the House; and then if Harry Reid tries to stop it, the GOP — and in particular, those Visigothic Hobbit types who have been calling upon Congress to rein in the EPA, which has become one of the enforcement arms of the progressive march through our institutions — should hit them hard with their own tactics, talking about the need for “transparency” and then citing the two new studies as the prevailing “settled science” showing that the EPA used bogus studies to justify its onerous, job killing regulations for over 2 decades.
This also dovetails nicely with one of Mark Levin’s liberty amendments, which would allow states to vote to overturn economically burdensome regulations.
Of course, the GOP leadership tends to be softer on such messaging, fearful they’ll be labeled “deniers” with respect to global whateverthehellitscallednowwhenhumansfuckuptheworld, but again, they needn’t worry: conservatives, libertarians, and TEA Party hicks are prepared to do the heavy listing. From CEI:
The White House got it wrong. But the good news is they have a chance to set the record straight.
The trouble started when the White House put out a two-minute video that included claims that recent cold spells in the U.S. are linked to global warming. CEI attorneys Sam Kazman and Hans Bader today filed a formal request under the Information Quality Act for the White House to correct the erroneous claims in question:
“In reality, as we explain below, the evidence (including the conclusions of peer-reviewed scholarly articles) indicates that the kind of extreme cold experienced in the United States this past winter is not linked to global warming.”
For example: “[White House Science Advisor John] Holdren’s claim of ‘a growing body of evidence’ is contradicted by recent peer-reviewed studies. These studies find that that global warming is not leading to increased atmospheric winter blocking, much less causing an increase in winter cold waves or cold weather.”
View a write up of the matter on Globalwarming.org
(h/t Christine Hall)
You can read the Information Quality Act correction request here.
This to me seems like a good way to tamp down on the serial lying that gets tossed off as established truth with respect to the transnational progressive’s dream of using global climate change as a springboard for vast realignments of national wealth and power — if only because it will perhaps wake up a sufficient number of Americans to the fact that a lot of our policy is based on lies, half-truths, and “science” funded by governmental grants that, amazingly, always seem to align with governmental policy preferences with respect to anthropomorphic weather change.