There’s more ugliness like what went on recently with Oregon State University. This professor exposed corruption within the California University system that had ties to the California Air Resources Board’s botched PM2.5 rules. As we’ve seen recently, this PM2.5 regulatory action is so vile that the EPA does unannounced human experimentation.
From WND:
What’s academia’s response to a whistleblower who exposes fraudulent research and faked credentials on a panel of experts?
Fire the whistleblower, of course.
That’s the allegation in a new complaint filed against the regents of the University of California by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of former professor James E. Enstrom.
The lawsuit explains that Enstrom was a UCLA research professor for decades – until he blew the whistle on “junk environmental science and scientific misconduct at the University of California” and was dismissed.
“The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel for the ACLJ. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud but violated California law for the sake of imposing expensive new environmental regulations on California businesses.”
French said, “UCLA’s actions were so extreme that its own Academic Freedom Committee unanimously expressed its concern about the case.”
…
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles alleges the school violated Enstrom’s constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments.
Enstrom’s Ph.D. from Stanford is in physics. He’s worked in the university system for more than 30 years. His difficulties started after his peer-reviewed inhalation toxicology report titled “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and total Mortality Among Elderly Californians 1973-2002,” the claim explains.
That study “found no relationship between PM2.5 (particulate matter) and total mortality in California,” the lawsuit said.
His finding contradicted the opinions of “several senior … faculty members. [Environmental Health Sciences] chair Jackson, EHS professors John Froines and Aurthur Winer, epidemiology and EHS professor Bente Ritz, and Dean Rosenstock have all publicly supported the widely popular – though scientifically unfounded – argument that diesel particulate matter and/or PM2.5 results in increased mortality risks for California citizens.”
Enstrom then contradicted the other researchers in testimony to the state legislature and further exposed the fraudulent credentials of Hien T. Tran, “a key CARB scientist and lead author of the October 24, 2008 CARB report on PM2.5 and premature death.
“Mr. Tran’s research report served as the primary public health justification for a new diesel vehicle regulatory scheme approved by CARB … Dr. Enstrom’s statements brought to light that Mr. Tran’s Ph.D. was not awarded by the University of California at Davis as Tran claimed. Mr. Tran subsequently admitted that he purchased his Ph.D. at a cost of $1,000 from ‘Thornhill University,’ a fake institution and Internet diploma mill based at a UPS store in New York.”
The complaint also asserted that members of a university committee had been serving indefinite terms, in violation of state rules limiting terms to three years.
=============================================================
Full story at WND
=============================================================
An essay in 2009 lays out why Enstrom was right:
California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations
Claiming their action will save thousands of Californians’ lives and reduce health care expenditures, the California Air Resources Board has imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science.
Vigorous protests of the new regulations and the claims of benefits were submitted by Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA and others, amounting to more than 100 pages of written criticisms of the CARB scientific process and the studies that CARB claimed showed thousands of deaths from diesel small particles.
The year-long process of development of the new regulations resulted in some very revealing public commentary, accusations of complicity in the scientific review process, and even misconduct by CARB officials.
In the biggest scandal, opposition scientists found the lead author of the key study by CARB had faked his Ph.D. and lacked expertise in air pollution research. In addition, CARB hired reviewers to review their own papers, naturally resulting in approval of the scientific studies that claimed the death and health effects.
Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in a May 27, 2008 essay in The Washington Times, declared the new regulations, called the “Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan” (GMERP), an overreach by CARB based on bad science that will drive business out of California.
Miller cited a large and detailed 2005 study by Enstrom, who has a real Ph.D. from Stanford and a Masters in Public Health from his current university, UCLA. Enstrom found no death effect in the period between 1983 and 2002 from fine particulate matter in the air.
In any fair analysis of science, such a study disproves the claims of CARB of thousands of deaths. Miller pointed out the harm to the California economy created by the new CARB rules will induce additional deaths due to the “income effect.” Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.
In a valiant effort to push back on the CARB diesel regulations, Enstrom and others provided commentary and analysis in 2008 that showed the CARB scientific process was poisoned with bias and insider dealing, including a review panel that was clearly not objective and was set up to give CARB what it wanted.
During the effort to urge CARB to reconsider the bad effects for little benefit, the Enstrom group found out the lead author for CARB on the study, Hien Tran, in fact did not have the Ph.D. claimed by CARB in its major study of air pollution and that he had authored no significant studies in air pollution toxicology.
On December 10, 2008, in a last effort to change CARB votes and ask for reconsideration of the new regulations with a more disciplined peer review and scientific process, Enstrom authored a letter to CARB reminding the board of the public comments submitted already by many distinguished scientists.
Enstrom noted CARB had not adequately responded to the many criticisms in the public comments raising process and evidentiary questions and refutations of the CARB claims of thousands of deaths. Submitters included Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute, Joseph Suchecki of the Engine Manufacturers Association, Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, a prominent and nationally known epidemiologist, Dr. Fred Lipfert, also a national figure in public health, and Dr. John Dunn (the author of this essay), a 30-plus-year epidemiologist from UCLA.
They all asserted the CARB death projections were the product of an excessive zeal at CARB and unacceptably weak research on current California air pollution health effects. Moreover, the commentators pointed out the GMERP rules would impose new regulatory and economic burdens on industry and business that would result in hardship for the consuming public and harm the failing and frail California economy.
The public commentary, mostly from scientists and more than 140 pages, was negative, with the expected supportive letters from environmental organizations.
In his December 10 letter, Enstrom pointed out CARB’s disregard of public scientific commentary, the biased nature of the CARB consultants, lack of scientific qualifications of CARB lead author Hien Tran, and reasons why CARB should reconstitute its review process and committee members and restudy its scientific reports and projections of deaths.
In another December 2008 letter to CARB board members, Enstrom, Anthony Fucaloro, a 35-year chemist from Claremont McKenna University, Matt Malkan, a 25-year astrophysicist from UCLA, and Robert Phalen, a 35-year air pollution toxicologist from UC Irvine, pointed out their concerns:
General Concerns Regarding Air Pollution Health Effects and Regulations
1) Pollution levels are much lower today than in previous decades and current health risks are small.
2) Small epidemiologic associations are often spurious, rather than cause-and-effect relationships.
3) Regulations designed to solve one problem may have consequences that do more harm than good.
4) Scientists who are not popular activists are often marginalized and their important research is ignored.
5) Conflict of interest regarding power and funding exists between regulators and conforming scientists.
6) New regulations must be based on a fair evaluation of all available evidence from diverse sources.
Specific Concerns Regarding October 24, 2008 CARB Staff Report on PM 2.5 and Premature Deaths
1) Authors have no relevant peer-reviewed publications and lead author has misrepresented his “Ph.D.”
2) Report and public comments were never shown to outside reviewers as stated in Executive Summary.
3) Five independent sources indicate no current relationship between PM2.5 and deaths in California.
4) California has fourth lowest total age-adjusted death rate among US states and few “premature deaths.”
5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in California are currently at record low levels.
6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in California.
Conclusion
Important epidemiologic and toxicological evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until the above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.
The CARB board passed the rules unanimously. So much for the democratic process and scientific debate that results in good public policy.
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency
Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center
Fort Hood, Texas
Had I said:
“To end lung cancer, you need to make both cities and smoking illegal.”
I would agree with you. However, that isn’t what I said.
“want to end” is a desire, which is logically consistent with impossibility.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aha! O’kay 🙂
I’m studying logic questions etc so that I can get a good score on tests like SAT.
Wondering by the time I’m ready for College if there will be any left untouched by the likes of Mr Mann and this UCLA group, etc?
Good catch on the PDF link – Thanks
Regarding the University of Califraudia
A CRISIS OF COMPETENCE
The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism
in the University of California
April 2012
http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf?utm_source=March+26+Press+Release+-+A+Crisis+of+Competence+2&utm_campaign=CAS+report+press+release&utm_medium=email
This is just an appalling state of affairs….. science is now so corrupted with politics that the body of knowledge it now represents is so tangled with errors, yet so tightly guarded by politically correct gatekeepers, that it will be generations before the pursuit of knowledge is accessible to those gifted with inquiring minds.
How ironic… and at the same time pathetic.
“Let There Be Light” is the University of California motto….
Russell Howard’s Daily Mail Cancer Song sums it up:
Reblogged this on California TCOT and commented:
Why is this not surprising?
Pointman says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:51 am
Every time you think climate academia has hit the bottom, it manages to find a lower low.
_____________________________
At this point I rate (all) scientists slightly below used car salesmen. At least you already know a used car salesman is probably lying but you have the option of taking the vehicle to a good mechanic before buying. So it is time to knock scientists off their pedestal and treat them like you would a used car salesman who refuses to allow a mechanic to inspect the vehicle he is selling. When publishing, if ALL data, computer programs… are not release the paper should not be accepted for publication PERIOD!
For those upset about the link to WND
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/04/still-shameful-air-boards-response-scandal-appalli/
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/22/air-boards-shame-staff-never-revealed-internal-sca/
http://catcot.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/california-air-resources-board-caught-using-intentionally-flawed-data/ With links
http://www.martinezgazette.com/news/story/i569/2010/01/09/trucking-companies-hurt-recent-environmental-rules
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL
To Ian W at 4:46 pm:
Please reread my posts, especially this part: “Europeans — on this issue, not as a general matter — understand the importance of reducing black carbon, and not PM2.5 mass generally, to benefit public health.”
I carefully limited praise ONLY for European research on black carbon, not on global warming or CO2. I am well aware of the shocking way in which EU governments — and the US government, to a slightly lesser degree than, say, the UK government — keep raising the price of energy for people who need energy to survive, or at least live reasonably comfortably. Is the correct phrase “Barmy”?
Yes, I know about QALYs — quality adjusted life years. Basically, instead of saying that one statistical life is worth $9.5 million, you break it down to a valuation per year. If you did that for PM2.5, the benefits of most of EPA’s air rules would fall by a factor of 10 or more, even before looking at whether there are differential toxicities among particles. The Quality Adjusted part is more controversial, but not that much more — it basically says that a year when you are healthy is worth more than a year when you are infirm, near the end of your life.
FYI, EPA has been “studying” QALYs for two decades, but can’t seem to go beyond study. Sounds like much of the same in Europe.
I have trouble assessing the underlying facts and their significance from this kind of article. It’s driven by what looks like some conservative activist organizations with a talent for spin and that means I get suspicious about things not told or things misrepresented.
Rick says:————————-
June 16, 2012 at 9:30 am
Unfortunately, the requirements and rules for diesel burning trucks that are drawn up in California spread throughout North America. The manufacturers have found that many of these requirements are not attainable. Caterpillar was forced to withdraw from the North American truck engine market because they felt they couldn’t meet the new standards. Trucking firms across North America will tell you that dependability and fuel economy have suffered because of these new rules and wonder if the ultimate aim of California regulators is to curtail any commerce that moves by truck.
—————————————————————————————
Why not ban ALL diesels and kerosene particulate spewing engines. RIGHT NOW. No train locomotives , no ships in LA or San Francisco, no navy, no air force, no back up generators so all the food will spoil first power failure, no diesel pusher motor homes, no diesel gen sets for Hollywood sets, no diesel for emergency lighting on the freeways and elsewhere, no diesel buses, no diesel garbage trucks or other City vehicles, no Greyhound buses, no tractors to till and harvest crops, no transport trucks (94% of US goods are moved by diesel), no construction equipment so no construction work, no ferries, no tugboats …. basically all industry in California would come to a halt.
Problem solved. Everyone in California will be dead or in Oregon and Nevada in a week \sarc off.
People really have no clue about the resources and services our economy depends on.
The biggest problems with particulate matter comes deserts and outdated agricultural practices which affect much larger areas of the planet. Maybe we should ban agriculture and deserts too …. make it a priority in Rio. \2nd level sarc off
Where science cannot fill the vacuum of certainty, advocacy comes along to infiltrate. Such is the state of paleoclimatology.
When science cannot supply the oxygen of certainty, advocacy substitutes like carbon monoxide. Such is the state of paleoclimatology.
LazyTeenager says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I have trouble assessing the underlying facts and their significance from this kind of article.
There goes that English comprehension problem kicking in again.
It’s driven by what looks like some conservative activist organizations with a talent for spin and that means I get suspicious about things not told or things misrepresented.
Translation: “I read the first few paragraphs of the post, scanned the comments to see if there were any additional talking points I should mention, and didn’t click any of the links.”
Bill,
It is obvious isn’t it? Lazy teenager is lazy in that he does not understand the article and instead of learning about what is being discussed he just lobs it away as a “conservative activist organization with a talent for spin.”
Of course, most of the time he does not admit to both not understanding the article and also talking about how its wrong in the same post, but ya know, even the trolls slip up from time to time. One might ask how can someone form an opinion about something they can not understand, but shrug as I laugh at this nonsense I learned long ago to just ignore such logical fallacies and laugh at the trolls. Its the best we can do after all huh?
Toastrider says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:59 am
The July 2012 issue of PopSci is depressingly in the can for climate change.
Popular Science is in the can for climate change period. Not just the July 12th issue. I’ve been receiving it for the last couple of years and they had zilch on the liberation of the East Anglia info.
I no longer pay for it but still receive it because I canceled the credit card I used to sign up for a subscription and they keep sending it along with a bill in the mail every so often. I don’t even bother reading it anymore.
The editor is the typical progressive with the smug countenance & wire rimmed glasses. AKA the Kieth Olberman look.
The University got rid of a Professor with 35 years commitment to the institution – for no reason, yet the admitted liar Hien Tran is STILL employed. He received a slap on the wrist – 60 day suspension and 2 grade demotion.
THis despite all of these findings in the UC review:
http://static.tbc.zope.net/newsroom/pdfs/aircreds.pdf
zefal says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:30 pm
I no longer pay for it but still receive it because I canceled the credit card I used to sign up for a subscription and they keep sending it along with a bill in the mail every so often.
Proof that the “progressive” mindset — ignore the evidence and keep repeating the actions in hopes that something will change — has taken over in every department. Either that, or they’re fudging the circulation numbers to keep their advertisers.
A mag with realists in charge would have sent you a notice that, unless you forked over the coinage to continue your subscription, you had just received your last issue — and then offered you a discount on your renewal for being a valued customer.
A. Scott – the UC review was an eye opener. The bad guy gets a smack on the wrist, while the good guy gets fired.
California is going bankrupt because of its obsession with implementing pointless, unnecessary, expensive and industry hostile green initiatives. This document clearly illustrates the moral corruption among opinion forming academics in California.
[snip . . off topic, we are not discussing the tobacco industry on this thread, thanks . . kbmod]
The legal case is being handled by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). They have an excellent track record of bitch-slapping universities that try to shut down free speech in all its forms (mostly suppressing free speech due to bogus PC concerns). Their web page provides a great deal of background on this case and is probably more reliable than WND.
http://thefire.org/case/838
As I said
it is getting colder
better get used to that tune
\
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
LazyTeenager says:
June 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm
“…looks like some conservative activist organizations with a talent for spin and that means I get suspicious about things not told or things misrepresented.”
Do you mean lying by omission?
Yes, things are rarely what they seem!
“The air board’s shame / Staff never revealed internal scandal before crucial vote ”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/22/air-boards-shame-staff-never-revealed-internal-sca/
“Soon afterward, a Union-Tribune editorial writer confirmed allegations that Hien T. Tran – the lead scientist and coordinator of the study used to justify the stringent new diesel regulations – had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis. Instead, it turned out, Tran had a mail-order Ph.D. sent to him from a “university” based at a mailbox at a UPS office in New York City – and that senior air board officials knew this before the Dec. 12 vote.”
Why is no one in jail?
“The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL&ao=all
Fraud, racketeering and extortion (of tax dollars).
Welcome to the Modern Scientific Community.
Like Islamist are often (justifiably so) annoyed w/ being classified as terrorist extremists…If you are a scientist and don’t like being painted as a fraud, you (the community) need to speak up, denounce and root out the perpetrators.
Couldn’t the trucking companies affected by this use the information to get rid of the restrictions?