Scientists May Have Lied To Promote EPA’s Global Warming Agenda

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jun 5, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Scientists may have lied about the EPA’s involvement in a recent study put out earlier this year claiming Obama administration regulations on carbon dioxide emissions will save thousands of lives every year.

    Emails obtained by the blog JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy show Harvard University and Syracuse University researchers involved in the study consulted with the EPA while conducting their study, contradicting their previous statements the study was done independently of the agency.

    “Emails obtained from EPA through the Freedom of Information Act show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two researchers falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted ‘independent’ of the agency,” Milloy wrote.

    In May, scientists released a study finding the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” — which aims to reduce CO2 emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — would prevent 3,500 premature deaths every year because cutting CO2 emissions will also lower traditional air pollutants and allegedly save lives.

    The Clean Power Plan is the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, so positive study’s like the Harvard-Syracuse one are welcomed by the White House and the EPA. Indeed, the EPA sent out favorable statements on the study’s release.

    EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia told The Washington Post the study showed the Clean Power Plan “is on the right track.” She said the “benefits are in addition to the benefits that will be realized by addressing a changing climate.”

    The study claimed to be done independently of EPA influence, and researchers declared there was no conflict of interest in their study. Harvard University and media reports stressed the study as “independent.”

    Study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard told U.S. News and World Report the EPA “did not participate in the study or interact with its authors” adding that “[w]ork on the paper began even before the EPA unveiled the Clean Power Plan.”

    Lead author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse also said work on their study began before the Clean Power Plan was proposed and told The New York Times it “was a coincidence that one of the researchers’ models so closely resembled the federal proposal.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/05/scientists-may-have-lied-to-promote-epas-global-warming-agenda/
     
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=100086

    So is it first they lie and then tell the truth or is it first they tell the truth then they lie? :confused:

    Speaking of lying scientists . . . did you know . . .

    The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:

    Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

    Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:

    It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html

     
    #2 poncho, Jun 5, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2015
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295


    Uh huh. Lancet has been guilty of propagating some pretty big whoppers as well.
     

Share This Page

Loading...