Joint Science Chemistry Professor Anthony Fucaloro signed on early last December to a statement criticizing the California Air Resources Board for a report which urged stronger diesel regulations. View the statement here if you wish, but I reprint it in full:
REQUEST TO POSTPONE AND REASSESS CARB DIESEL REGULATIONS
James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. 35-year lifestyle epidemiologist
Anthony Fucaloro, Ph.D. 35-year chemist with public policy expertise, Claremont McKenna College Joint Science Department email@example.com
Matthew A. Malkan, Ph.D. 25-year astrophysicist, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy firstname.lastname@example.org
Robert F. Phalen, Ph.D. 35-year air pollution toxicologist, UC Irvine Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory email@example.com
December 3, 2008
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
5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in
6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in
Important epidemiologic and toxicologic evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by
CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.
There you have it. All those who charge the Bush Administration with disregarding science in favor of politics (and they occasionally do so convincingly), should get their own house in order. It turns out that liberals can play fast-and-loose with science, too, to promote their cause.
Take global warming as another example. While I don't dispute that global warming is occurring or that mankind is contributing to it, I think various scientific studies disagree on the extent of mankind's contribution; the actual consequences of increased global temperatures; and, ultimately, what we can do about it. I've written on the global warming alarmists before, which you can read here. I got a letter to the editor, to which I responded, and you can see those here and here.