To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (992678 ) 1/9/2017 10:59:43 AM From: Brumar89 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to That's a silly question. IMO his expertise is in the commission of fraud. It's the EPA and the liberal media that treated him as a climate change expert because he also used his fraud skills on BEHALF of the EPA. report , titled “EPA’s Playbook Unveiled: A Story of Fraud, Deceit and Secret Science,” was how agency officials concealed and misled about the science that underpinned its most significant initiatives and silenced and marginalized their own internal watchdog offices The idea behind “sue-and-settle” is for friendly plaintiffs to sue a government agency, work out agreeable terms—perhaps even beforehand—and emerge with a court order to implement rules or regulations that could not have been achieved through the democratic or even regulatory process. Beale and Robert Brenner, his best friend and erstwhile boss, made what documents called a “policy call” and seized on the urgency to produce new particulate matter standards to rush through a new ozone standard as well. The Council of Economic Advisers also measured the cost and found it to be $60 billion—24 times the EPA estimate. Indeed, as was the case with him getting away with not showing up for work and submitting exorbitant expense reports, succeeding in this regulatory sleight of hand only emboldened Beale to go further. In 1997, with the backing of his superiors, he sought to engage the agency in regulating fine particulate matter—particles a fourth the size of those regulated under PM10 and too small to be visible to the human eye. [ This fine particulate matter regulation is why the EPA is preparing to fine Fairbanks AK for their residents heating their homes with wood. ] Beale pulled data from two controversial studies—the Harvard Six Cities Study and an American Cancer Society study known as ACSII. The data was not trusted. The air advisory committee pointed out it had not been peer-reviewed, and others indicated Beale was exaggerating the findings for his desired result. 20 years later, EPA still refuses to release the data, despite McCarthy’s promise to do so during her confirmation hearings. [ If the data were released, it no doubt, would be found to be shoddy and the whole justification for regulating fine particulates would be destroyed. Why else wouldn't McCarthy have kept her promise? ] This effort codified EPA’s now customary practice of using fine particulates (PM2.5) to inflate the benefits of nearly all regulations issued under the Clean Air Act,” the Senate report concludes. “Yet the science supporting nearly all of EPA’s alleged benefits remain hidden and unverified.” http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/10/senate-report-exposes-epas-secret-science-phony-cia-agent/
