I guess the email was about an article by Rachel DeJong because that's what Anthony copied and pasted (archived here). The article was just more of the same faked up insinuations and allegations about the EPA. Rachel DeJong apparently favours dirty air and polluted water. She doesn't want pollution to be regulated.
I won't go through her entire spin. I'll pick out one point to illustrate her unsavoury smear tactics. It's typical of pro-pollution advocates everywhere.
At one point Rachel DeJong wrote:
But there is increasing concern that GHGs are not quite so harmful to the planet as the EPA might have us think, and that the agency may have rigged its data and hidden the evidence. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has acknowledged in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences that her job requires shielding the data “from those not qualified to analyze it.” Partly in response, Congress is considering a bill, the Secret Science Reform Act, that would further elucidate transparency standards that the EPA must meet, and would forbid the agency from practicing any “secret science” that hides important details from the public.
Needless to say, all it takes is for someone to claim that greenhouse gases are "not as harmful to the planet as the EPA might have us think" and deniers go bananas. Especially people who deny that greenhouse gases cause global warming.
Toss in an unsubstantiated faked up allegation that the EPA "may have rigged its data and hidden the evidence" and you've got an uproar from the illiterati.
What about the claim that Gina McCarthy " has acknowledged in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences that her job requires shielding the data “from those not qualified to analyze it.” ? Rachel DeJong didn't link to the speech itself, for reasons that will become obvious. Instead she linked to someone else who quoted those six words out of context. That someone else was
Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences two months ago, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her Agency needed to protect the science “from those not qualified to analyze it.”
That's a good trick for people when they want to misrepresent someone's words. Link to someone else who also misrepresents someone's words. Support your fake claim by linking to someone else, preferably someone with whose ideology you yourself espouse. Someone else who takes a direct quote and puts it into a sentence with a completely different meaning from the original. Someone else who, like you, intends to mislead. Fake sceptics rarely check any links but if there was a stray reader who decided to check for themselves they might just check one link and not go further.
Rachel DeJong's lack of ethics
Why didn't Rachel DeJong or Anthony Watts or
Those critics conjure up claims of "EPA secret science" -- but it's not really about EPA science or secrets. It's about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. It's about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it -- and won't agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of "secret science" because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who've spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it -- then so be it!
Yep. Science deniers are doing an about face. When deniers protest in public, on as many websites as they can find to print them, wanting all the world to read their weird conspiracy mutterings - when they get quoted by anyone else in a research study no less, they go bezerk and start wailing and moaning about "ethics". But when it comes to ethics around anonymised personal health data, suddenly they want de-anonymised confidential personal information pertaining to individuals to be out in the public domain.
Empty allegations at the work of experts
Gina McCarthy's speech is worth a read. She speaks plainly and could be speaking about the sort of unethical behaviour that people like Ashley Thorne, Rachel DeJong, Lamar Smith and Anthony Watts appear to be engaged in. And she points out their lies and fallacious arguments. Here is more:
Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day. I bet when those same critics get sick, they run to doctors and hospitals that rely on science from -- guess who -- Harvard and the American Cancer Society.
I bet they check air quality forecasts from EPA and the National Weather Service -- to see if the air is healthy enough for their asthmatic child to play outside. I bet they buy dishwashers with ENERGY STAR labels, and take FDA approved medicine, and eat USDA approved meats. I don't blame them! People and businesses around the world look to EPA and other federal agencies because our science is reliable, and our scientists are credible.
But still -- for some reason -- those critics keep launching empty allegations at the work of experts without regard for the damage left behind. Let me share one example.
A while back, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that EPA conduct limited studies with real people as participants -- to better understand biological responses to different levels of air pollutants. These studies were limited in duration -- and only involved levels of pollution found in urban areas across the country. They helped connect the dots in risk and exposure studies that inform ambient air quality standards.
As you know, studies with real people are not new. They happen in universities and industries nationwide. That's why there are protocols to follow to ensure the safety of participants -- and EPA goes above and beyond them -- with independent scientists evaluating the studies before, during and after.
Safeguarding health is our top priority at EPA. In spite of all the safeguards to ensure that no one was put in harm's way -- the scientists conducting these studies have been publicly vilified. Their livelihoods have been threatened, their property has been damaged, and they faced the risk that their facility would be shut down. How does that make sense? ...When they were just doing their jobs as scientists -- in the safest, most professional, most transparent way possible. They were finding facts and laying them out for all to see. These scientists have devoted their lives to making our lives better.
My guess is that those critics that distrust the most trustworthy institutions -- and vilify the work of reputable scientists and EPA -- are not trying to provide scientific clarity. My guess is that they're looking to cloud the science with uncertainty -- to keep EPA from doing the very job that Congress gave us to do.
As scientists and public health professionals -- we have an obligation to speak up when sound science is unfairly criticized -- just as we have an obligation to question science that is truly secret.
To those calling EPA untrustworthy and unpopular -- newsflash! People like us. They want safe drinking water. They want healthy air. And they expect us to follow the science -- just as the law demands. And to those failing to see the need to fund scientific research -- tell that to Google, built by a couple of students empowered by a National Science Foundation grant. Don't believe me? -- just Google it!
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You can't just claim the science isn't real when it doesn't align well with your political or financial interests. Science is real and verifiable. 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.
And what about the worn-out argument that science-driven policies come with unbearable economic costs? Well that just doesn't jive with the facts. The truth is: science has supported regulations, policies and programs that have been good for public health, our planet, and our pocketbooks; for consumers and companies.You can read Gina McCarthy's speech in full here.
So do Ashley Thorne, Rachel DeJong, Lamar Smith and Anthony Watts want polluted unclean water, filthy dangerous smog for the USA? Are they advocating that all their personal medical records should be put out in the public domain? That's the logical extension of their arguments.
Look, it's one thing to reject scientific facts. It's one thing to not accept that gravity exists or that the earth revolves around the sun. To publicly question basic science just makes you look like a fool. To deliberately make up stuff about agencies that have helped make sure your drinking water is potable, that you have clean air to breathe, with the aim of undermining their work - just because you think our current life span is too long or for whatever other weird reason you have, is wrong in my book.
From the WUWT comments
July 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Ah, the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) has the potential for being a “tipping point”.
Alan Robertson lives in la-la land and says:
July 10, 2014 at 3:50 pm
We can root for the ITSSD efforts against the rogue EPA, as futile as they are likely to be against the usurped power of the Obama administration, but we won’t know just how close to the edge of the abyss our nation really stands until after January 3rd, 2015, when the new US Congress is sworn in and has the first real opportunity to put a stop to the madness.
Reg Nelson doesn't understand the water cycle or the carbon cycle and says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Am I missing something?
If this applies to all GHG’s, not just CO2, it means that water vapor is also a pollutant, and therefore must be regulated. Certain cities, states and countries will now be subject to a Cloud Tax and be forced to buy Blue Sky credits from sunnier regions. I’m looking at you Seattle. Pony up.
Bob is another pro-pollution advocate and says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Anthony, you may or may not realize that this will turn out to be your most important post. Please keep on it.
bw thinks scientists need a science lesson and probably thinks his logic is impeccable when he says:
July 10, 2014 at 6:46 pm
CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is the basic component of all life on earth via photosynthesis.
For example, a tree is mostly wood, ie cellulose. Cellulose is made from many glucose units plugged together like a chain. You could also say a tree is made of polyglucose or plastic sugar.
Glucose is made from CO2 and water in a plant cell exposed to sunlight.
6CO2 + 6H2O produces one glucose (C6H12O6) with 6 oxygen molecules are disposed.
By mass, 264 grams of CO2 plus 108 grams of water produce 180 grams of glucose and 192 grams of oxygen.
A tree is mostly carbon dioxide, from the air. The roots are needed mostly for the water. Wood is more than pure cellulose, so some minerals from the ground are needed for other chemical components. When wood is burned, the reverse occurs. The solid ashes are oxides of the minerals.
Anyone who says CO2 is pollution and should be removed from the atmosphere is also saying that all life on earth should stop.I have this image of balloon trees that are "mostly carbon dioxide, from the air" floating way up into the sky.