Alternate headline - California still stuck on stupid

or maybe

The facts are what we SAY they are - this is politics!

or maybe even

"D@mmit Jim, I'm a Doctor!"


Interesting story out of Kalifornia where CARB (California Air Resources Board) was debating new regulations on diesel vehicles. They relied on a study published by "Dr." Hien Tran that attempted to link fine particulate emissions from diesel engines to 2,000 “premature deaths” in the state.

Dr. James Enstrom, an environmental sciences professor and researcher at UCLA thought that the study was not a serious, rigorous study. He checked into Tran and found that this heavyweight on the board of CARB, who claimed to have a PhD in statistics from UC-Irvine, had no such credentials. He bought his PhD from a diploma mill called Thornhill University, which exists only as a mailbox.

Enstrom had spent many years doing a study on exactly the issue being debated and his findings show no linkage between diesel particulates and premature deaths. He forwarded his study to CARB and they appeared to have ignored it and passed the new regulations anyway.

UCLA has fired Enstrom for a set of reasons that seem to keep changing. The others all still have their jobs. FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has come to Enstrom's defense. Twelve members of the State Legislature have written the UCLA chancellor and provost warning that they will hold public hearings into this situation regarding the treatment of the 34 year faculty member. They wrote that they "remain deeply troubled by the University’s inability to provide credible cause for Dr. Enstrom’s dismissal, and the appearance of political interference in the University’s academic discourse.”

To get a better grip of the backstory on this, resources can be found here, and here. Also, see the FIRE website with more info here.


We all know that the loons rule the nest in Kalifornia. Where else can somebody fabricate credentials that gets him a cushy top position on a policy making body that creates pollution regulations and when the fraud is discovered, all he gets is a demotion and a slap on the wrist? Not only that, but the board used his non-scientific study as a basis for making their decision. Fraud is not a fireable offense in government in Kalifornia? It appears to be the case. After all, to the extreme greenies there, they got what they want - tougher, job killing regulations based on pseudo-science. The end justifies the means to these cretins. Let's ignore the real scientific study and its conclusions and make policy based on fantasy and extreme left ideology.

Yet some still wonder why that state is going under.





I gots me an idea. Why not punish the whistleblower? Done. Check.

Mr. Enstrom has kind of a questionable past so it is difficult to know if his studies can be trusted any more than the guy who went through a "diploma mill".

Then, how about some actual facts about his "questionable past?"

I know you don't deal in facts because they are inconvenient. Give me some links about his questionable past, if you can.

The man has been a highly respected researcher at UCLA for 34 years. He published a highly inconvenient study that showed that the (political) environmental regulatory moves that the libs out there wanted were NOT supported by any research.

Politically inconvenient.

If you could read, you'd have noticed that the diploma mill was nothing more than a mailbox. No school exists. A number of these outfits have been closed by the Feds out in California. Scammers. Frauds.

Come on, little Robby. Give me some links. I'm waiting. No talking points but rather actual substance, which you avoid like the plague.

"Kind" of a questionable past so you don't know if you can trust his scientific studies any more than the frauds? Makes perfect sense.

"Questionable past" is a euphemism for "we need to shut this guy up" in certain political circles that just happen to dominate the politics of that state. Ironically, the same circles in which Robert crawls.

(04-02-2011 05:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  "Questionable past" is a euphemism for "we need to shut this guy up" in certain political circles that just happen to dominate the politics of that state. Ironically, the same circles in which Robert crawls.

Google is your friend. Look him up. Look up his history of corporate money(cigarette companies).

Paula, I am not surprised it makes no sense to you. Reality makes no sense to you.

(04-02-2011 05:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I would just like to, once again, apologize for my pitiful, ill advised posts in the "Death Threats? Really?" thread. You would think at some point I'd stop jumping to wrong conclusions and accuse others of lying. My bad. But I have a long history here and everyone is well aware I'm incapable of changing my pathetic ways so, future apologies also.

(04-02-2011 05:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 05:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  "Questionable past" is a euphemism for "we need to shut this guy up" in certain political circles that just happen to dominate the politics of that state. Ironically, the same circles in which Robert crawls.

Google is your friend. Look him up. Look up his history of corporate money(cigarette companies).

Paula, I am not surprised it makes no sense to you. Reality makes no sense to you.

Robert - YOU made the assertion. Back it up with something other than your opinion. Bring something other than "it is because I said it is."

You want to attack the victim here. Fine. I won't do your research for you.

When I lived in CA the John & Ken radio show hammered Tran and CARB. http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

(04-02-2011 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  When I lived in CA the John & Ken radio show hammered Tran and CARB. http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

As they probably should have. My point was that the man pointing him out is questionable as to his scientific studies. In the past he apparently took money from PM and a tobacco company started and funded group. He was studying if there was any connection between passive cigarette smoke and mortality. He came to the conclusion there was little to no connection between the 2.

Here is the study with some responses following:

http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full

Here is where I got the info about his source of funding(in general it would be a biased source):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...E._Enstrom

Here is his response to the previous link. He doesn't deny the funding from tobacco companies but denies it effected his results in any way.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._own_words

I guess I should have stated that it was my opinion that he was questionable. I really see a conflict of interest and a questionable outcome based on that conflict of interest. I am not the only one though.

(04-02-2011 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  When I lived in CA the John & Ken radio show hammered Tran and CARB. http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

I have personally been involved with CARB and its regulations of formaldehyde in building products(plywood panels). To give you an idea of the damage this bureaucracy has done....The company I work for in NC has spent over 30,000 dollars in the last 2 years in order to simply have our products tested for CARB compliance. During that time frame we had to cut benefits to employees, reduce hours, and lay off almost 50 workers. This expense did not go away. Imagine amount of money that this has cost the consumers nationwide. No damn wonder the price of building products has risen dramatically since this CARB BS came to being. The really sad thing about this is that the plywood industry was already in the process of lowering PPM of formaldehyde in their products voluntarily as a marketing tool. Because of the large market of Ca. CARB has essentially become the national environmental agency. Unless you comply with CARB, you can not sell product in the state.

(04-02-2011 11:02 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I guess I should have stated that it was my opinion that he was questionable. I really see a conflict of interest and a questionable outcome based on that conflict of interest. I am not the only one though.

Well, I give you credit for the above statement. Would have been nice to know the sources upon which you based your opinion in your first response. But you brought some content that allows one to see where your point of view originated.

We've seen this type of response before to research that comes to conclusions at odds with the "prevailing opinion" from powerful agencies or interest groups. Ex. - the global warming debate, where any research that seemed to contradict the popular opinions of the day was dismissed out of hand. They were accused of fudging their research BECAUSE they got funding from the fossil fuel energy industry.

I don't necessarily assume that the source of funding means that a study is not accurate. I'm not naive enough to believe that some funding doesn't come with expectations that the results be agreeable to the corporation or industry funding it.

But that in itself does not mean that all industry funded studies are junk science or the conclusions invalid.

It is sad that science continues to be politicized and scientists ostracized because their research findings don't agree with what some people believe it should be. In the case above, it seems to not be political in nature as much as it is against the narrative the public health authorities have been peddling. If you read Dr. Enstrom's comments in one of the links above, he details how they have tried to smear him and discredit his work.

But the fact remains that he is getting railroaded out of his position at UCLA. I don't believe that this will stand. UCLA looks pretty bad in this situation. If state politicos get involved, UCLA likely will have egg on its face.

(04-03-2011 09:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  When I lived in CA the John & Ken radio show hammered Tran and CARB. http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

I have personally been involved with CARB and its regulations of formaldehyde in building products(plywood panels). To give you an idea of the damage this bureaucracy has done....The company I work for in NC has spent over 30,000 dollars in the last 2 years in order to simply have our products tested for CARB compliance. During that time frame we had to cut benefits to employees, reduce hours, and lay off almost 50 workers. This expense did not go away. Imagine amount of money that this has cost the consumers nationwide. No damn wonder the price of building products has risen dramatically since this CARB BS came to being. The really sad thing about this is that the plywood industry was already in the process of lowering PPM of formaldehyde in their products voluntarily as a marketing tool. Because of the large market of Ca. CARB has essentially become the national environmental agency. Unless you comply with CARB, you can not sell product in the state.

Imagine how much more it would have cost when a bunch of people got sick. Seriously, do you care about human health at all or are you only for making a profit at any cost? You really don't have to answer that. You don't give a **** about human life, just profits. You are a sad pathetic excuse of a human being.

(04-03-2011 09:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 08:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  When I lived in CA the John & Ken radio show hammered Tran and CARB. http://killcarb.org/JohnKenCarb.html

I have personally been involved with CARB and its regulations of formaldehyde in building products(plywood panels). To give you an idea of the damage this bureaucracy has done....The company I work for in NC has spent over 30,000 dollars in the last 2 years in order to simply have our products tested for CARB compliance. During that time frame we had to cut benefits to employees, reduce hours, and lay off almost 50 workers. This expense did not go away. Imagine amount of money that this has cost the consumers nationwide. No damn wonder the price of building products has risen dramatically since this CARB BS came to being. The really sad thing about this is that the plywood industry was already in the process of lowering PPM of formaldehyde in their products voluntarily as a marketing tool. Because of the large market of Ca. CARB has essentially become the national environmental agency. Unless you comply with CARB, you can not sell product in the state.

About a year ago CARB was toying with the idea of banning the use of fireplaces (which just about every home has) and wood burning stoves. Making matter worse, they have no oversight.