Thats awesome! Why do I feel like Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber, when he yells Weve landed on the moon!

I hope youre talking about people asking you to put it off in your car. In my car, even when I smoked which was 2 months ago, I told people not to smoke in my car.

 

Where do you get your inof? Next you will tell us that DDT is bad!

Some info from the 1993 ruiling againt the EPA and its second hand smoke: The judge overturned thier decision.

District Judge William Osteen, accused the agency of Alice in Wonderland-style justice, in which the verdict comes before the evidence. He wrote, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, excluded industry by violating [statutory] procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized [statutory] authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion." "In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information, did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer."

Osteen nullified the EPA's 1992 assessment that there is sufficient evidence to designate second-hand smoke as a human carcinogen. He determined that the agency had knowingly, willfully and aggressively disseminated false information with far-reaching regulatory implications.

EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the (1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research) Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion; and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion." The judge charges EPA not just with bad science but with bad faith - with having "cherry-picked its data."

Michael Fumento, science advisor to the Atlantic Legal Foundation, argued in a July 22 Washington Times op-ed that the EPA report didn't "use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval." The decision said that the EPA's epidemiological studies did not qualify as true science because measurements had little credibility and studies include assumptions that are grossly unrealistic while excluding publications that arrived at contrary conclusions. EPA findings did not account for bias and contained conjectures devoid of scientific content and justification, the court said. In other words, the EPA used junk science to back its own preconceived claim.

This simply means there are only 5 chances in 100 that the conlcusion came about simply by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

The EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw. Why would it do such a strange thing? Because its results weren't signficant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal post to the three-yard line because the football had fallen two yards short of a touchdown.

 

Too much of anything is bad. We dont need science to tell us this. Too much carbon emission is not good.....

 

ANd most of it is not caused by humans!

 

But al gore said so, and there's a movie and all!

 

Is that the same Al Gore that invented the Internet?

 

That'd be the one! Him and his minions, would love to put a hurtin' on the entire industry we all enjoy so much.

 

Data presented in this post suggests otherwise. I'd be interested in seeing you back up your claims.