New in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology from JunkScience.com friend Stan Young.

The study is accessible here. The abstract below.

As always, everything you’ll want to know about air pollution junk science is in “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.”

Read more at junkscience.com

You can probably imagine taking a month-long road trip across the U.S. with five other people in a Winnebago. It’d be a little cramped and you’d likely get on each other’s nerves, but at least you’d get to stop for breaks, eat at diners, jump in lakes, and maybe even take pictures at the Grand Canyon.

Now imagine driving in that packed van for six months straight. You can’t stop at all to stretch or pick up roadside snacks. You can’t open the window for fresh air. And every time you ask Waze for new directions, it takes 40 minutes to get a new map.

 

Game-changing new study reveals official government climate science calculations were botched from outset. Decades of “useless” computer model data exposed as “non-physical and misleading.”

Study author is Aussie climate researcher and engineer, Ross McLeod. He writes: “This analysis mathematically disproves the assertion that you can algebraically sum up different radiation fluxes and calculate the resulting temperatures.”

ABSTRACT: The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by faulty or fraudulent research.

Widely believed claims of carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been millions of preventable deaths. Fraud in science is a major problem.

Image copyright: SPL

The last woolly mammoths to walk the Earth were so wracked with genetic disease that they lost their sense of smell, shunned company, and had a strange shiny coat. That’s the verdict of scientists who have analysed ancient DNA of the extinct animals for mutations.

The studies suggest the last mammoths died out after their DNA became riddled with errors. The knowledge could inform conservation efforts for living animals.

Image copyright: QUB

“I had a dead leg one Sunday morning and it progressed to full paralysis within two hours,” says Dr Denise Fitzgerald, from Queen’s University Belfast.

She was only 21 at the time, but the event helped to inspire the fledgling scientist to crack how the brain is repaired.

Here is a fine exposition of Professor Robert M. Carter’s (decd) thoughts on the field of climate science and why we should not jump to conclusions concerning global warming/climate change.  The text and some illustrations are provided by Russ Swan in his post (here).  I added one at the end.

Abstract: Stable parts of the South Australia coast show that the last interglacial sea level was 2 m higher than present, but elsewhere there has been relative subsidence up to 7 m and uplift of 18 m. Estimates of changing sea level, and future projections, should state the time period involved and the tectonic background to be of any use.

The coast contains ‘carbonate sand factories’ where organisms produce vast amounts of sand by fixing carbon dioxide as carbonates. Far from dissolving carbonate by acidification, carbon dioxide is an essential part of carbonate production and the continued maintenance and growth of coasts and reefs.

The Commerce Department is investigating claims by one of its former scientists that an Obama administration climate change study was rushed out using “unverified” data.

Republican lawmakers are waiting for an update on the federal probe, which was initiated a month ago. But a Commerce Department spokesman declined to comment on any of its specifics.

Some people say if you drop something on the floor and pick it up in less than five seconds it’s ok to eat, but is it safe?

Well, food safety expert Professor Anthony Hilton from Aston University says the “five-second rule” for eating things dropped on the floor is usually correct.

Environmental psychologist Arline L. Bronzaft, PhD, is professor emerita of psychology at Lehman College, City University of New York, and an expert witness in court cases and government hearings on the impact of noise on mental and physical well-being. She spoke with us about the detriments of noise on everything from our physiology to children’s learning.

In towns and cities across the world, the colour of night is changing. Traditional yellow sodium street lights are steadily being replaced by white LED lamps. The new lights use less energy, dramatically cutting carbon emissions and saving money. But not everybody is happy.

“When the leaves left the trees and I tried to sleep, I turned to one side and the light’s shining right in my eyes.”

Image copyright: GETTY IMAGES

The study of the stars and the fight against cancer may seem to have little in common but the two have been brought together by the algorithms that read big data.

Every day we create 2.5 quintillion bytes of data – 90% of the data in the world today has been created in the past two years alone.

The target is not carbon, that is just one of many falsehoods. Carbon is a solid, and carbon dioxide a gas, yet, proponents of human-caused global warming (AGW) use them interchangeably.

They know people connect carbon with soot, hence the inappropriate phrase carbon pollution as they try to link CO2 with pollution. It is “newspeak” that George Orwell would appreciate.

The question is, why distort information and demonize a gas that is a fraction of the total atmosphere and essential to life?

Some financial gurus claim such “connected” things are soon to become the “new standard” of a “multi-trillion” dollar industry. Just invest now in this or that and, in no time flat, you’ll be able to share in the pie and become rich beyond belief. Even “Sharks” are now trying to feed on little mice (see the screenshot nearby), still I wonder:

I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.

That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can’t make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?