Posted on 04/19/2012 5:52:06 PM PDT by neverdem
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sponsored and funded "human health effects science" research is unreliable and makes irresponsible and outrageous claims about how air pollution causes thousands of deaths. Then the EPA claims that it can prevent those deaths with its latest set of regulations of emissions. This junk science can be challenged effectively, legally, and politically, as described below.
The science misconduct is the result of the politicization of public health science, something Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech in 1961. There are political, judicial, and administrative solutions to this perfidy.
First, what is the junk science?
Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts ( MIT press, 1995), by Peter Huber, Ph.D., J.D. and Ken Foster, Ph.D. -- written two years after the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a comprehensive and thorough book on junk science and legal solutions to prevent junk evidence. The book also explains Daubert evidentiary dicta, discussed in a previous essay. We also discussed the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (RSME) (1994, 2000, and 2011), published by the Federal Judicial Center, intended to educate judges on their Daubert duty to be gatekeepers for reliable scientific evidence in the courtroom.
Fallacious thinking makes EPA research in human health effects science unreliable, forsaking the most important responsibility of a scientist: be your own most severe critic, and retain a skeptical attitude about your ideas and theories. The key is to test your hypothesis -- your theory. If it can't be tested, it isn't science.
The scientific method is based on skeptical experimentation that looks for reliable evidence. Fallacies of scientific inquiry include confusing temporal with causal relationships (post hoc, propter hoc fallacy); reporting results that are within normal range of events (noise) or projecting observations of a...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Hey...the government controls the media...you can have any opinion you want, but only the approved opinion counts.
bttt
The “Magic Pill” Mr. Elton dropped into the water was calcium carbide. There was a reaction, and acetylene gas was produced, which is what the engine ran on.
Look up “acetylene generators” and post your comments...
Really? Then why has it gone on for almost 40 years?
Enough said!
The three links all go to the same place. Anything else to read?
Yes.
Go to the American Thinker link and download all the legal ways that the EPA should have been opposed all along for their "junk science," or "science by anecdote." Never real science supported by proof: "If it can't be challenged and tested, it's NOT scince!"
Daubert vs Merrel Dow, U.S. Supreme Court, 1993
2012 Federal Rules of Evidence
2012 Federal Rules of Evidence
I can't explain the inconsistency between the Court of Appeals date and the Supreme Court date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.