Ozone Rules as a Matter of Assertion, Not Science

Steven Milloy of Junkscience.com focuses on the substandard science used to support EPA’s recent proposed ozone limits in an op-ed in today’s Investor’s Business Daily, “Roguish EPA’s Junk Science Risks Recovery.” Excerpt:

The EPA points to a slew of studies to back up its proposal, but the scientific and economic reality of the proposal is far different. There is no body of systematically collected and scientifically analyzed data showing ambient levels of smog in the U.S. are the primary cause of a substantial or even detectable number of significant health effects.

To the extent the EPA points to published studies it claims support its proposal, these studies invariably involve cherry-picked data that have been statistically tortured to produce dubious, if not suspicious results — these studies tend to emanate from EPA-funded researchers. Imagine a police department that was also judge and jury.

Roguish AND imperial! Just the kind of regulatory agency we need.

Expect the science or lack thereof to remain a serious issue dogging the EPA’s action, and by dogging we mean serving to hold the agency accountable. The National Association of Manufacturers in October 2008 submitted a 160-page Request for Reconsideration to the EPA detailing a variety of problems with the agency’s studies and processes that led to its 2008 rule. The Legal Beagle entry on the action provides more detail on the flawed work.

Previously, in May 2008, the NAM and other members of the Ozone NAAQS Litigation Group petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the Bush Administration rule. The court held any action in abeyance until the current EPA acted. The industry petitioners have since requested a briefing schedule to move the case forward, a motion resisted by the EPA.

Leave a Reply