Are we on a false degree quest or discussing air quality here?

An important detail: "his willingness to lie about his credentials — particularly when a PhD wasn't even required for that job"

So. Does anyone else notice that Bakersfield is an incredibly dusty town?

Dirty Shirt is spot on.  Is Lois grasping at any available straw in some desperate attempt to salvage any shred of her objectivity?  I think yes.  The PhD issue is a red herring.

I hardly think I'm objective on this issue when I've clearly stated my opinion not only on air quality but also Tran's lying about his PhD.

So, no, CheshireCat, not trying to salvage even a shred of something that wasn't an issue in the first place.

I find it very interesting that you and DirtyShirt think it's just fine for Tran to lie about his credentials when he's promoting a position you both agree with.

If it were, instead, a researcher who put together a report relying on studies that show no increased death rate due to PM2.5 (and there are such studies out there which Tran discounted) and it turned out that researcher lied about his credentials you'd come unglued. As you should.

Lois, Lois, Lois...

Again with the insertion of words into others' mouths.

"I find it very interesting that you and DirtyShirt think it's just fine for Tran to lie about his credentials when he's promoting a position you both agree with."

When did I ever come even close to holding that position? Of even intimating it?

I have yet to come unglued about this issue Lois, but thanks for the vote of confidence as regards my passions. 

I have, you will note, questioned Dr. Dunn's credentials within the context of his placing himself as an expert on the subject. Tran was neither the primary author, nor is on record (as far as I have seen) as to his opinions on this subject.

Let's suppose Dr. Dunn has a secretary who helps him, say, Google the Reference Manual of Scientific Inquiry. She claims to be a Research Librarian and I discover she isn't. I blog the discovery. Her name is removed from Dr. Dunn's organizational chart.

Would this do anything to your view of Dr. Dunn's position?

Does that mean you think lying about being a Research Librarian is okay?

Importantly, also, how many times in my blog would you expect me to mention the secretary's bad judgement? At what point would you say I've crossed the line from bringing up important evidence as to the veracity of the main researcher, and moved on to presenting the unfortunate woman as a 'straw man'? Three? Five? Seven? Fifteen?

You once said, " He did far more than simply compile studies. He interjected a lot of his own methods for how to use the results of those studies and apply them to California." as regards Tran's input into the CARB report (http://www.bakoview.blogspo...

Please, for my own elucidation, share with us (me) the evidence of this claim. I have tried to find it myself and failed. I think, if true, this is the leg you have left to stand on, and it deserves to be investigated. Importantly, did his interjections have any meaningful impact on the outcome of the report? Does NIchols' willingness to stand by the report put the Tran issue at rest?

Finally, before we go there, I am not saying that this one report ought to be enough for you or anyone. If you have doubts, and your aim is to call for more research on the issue, then kudos to you. If the aim is only to dispel a study that doesn't agree with a political position, then shame on you. I, for one, would always support further study - that is NEVER a bad idea.

jeeze!

tran is the author of the report the board used to make its rule on diesel output!!!

Dude! read the report for yourself! l included in my column that the report included incorrect averages...but there's much more if you'd like to check for yourself.

dirtyshirt:

TRAN WAS THE AUTHOR OF T HE REPORT used by the board to make their stupid diesel rules.

Sorry, just thought that needed clarification.

LOL

My bad and sorry for wasting your time answering that bit. I mentioned Nichols earlier as the author and no one noticed. I still haven't found the original paper nor a link to it in your stuff. 

Corrected twice? Boy do I feel chagrined. Twice!!

So - I took NIchols, the head of CARB, as the responsible party - which isn't so very wrong considering that is the position she seems to be pushing to you and others.

But the original problem stands and my bottom line stands, unless there is something else I have missed here. 

Do we trash a policy or do we call for additional research? One is political gamesmanship and the other is honest inquiry based on genuine concern for what is best for California.

LOIS HENRY IS HEREBY NAMED THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF MISINFORMATION ON AIR QUALITY ISSUES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

airqualityguy: you underscore the subtitle of this blog with that comment: here, Lois, let me say it: "what the...?"

The Tran story was broken by a Dr. Enstrom from UCLA. Ever wonder how a person even thinks about checking the credentials of one of the researchers? In this case it could well be because he has been down the road of professional scrutiny himself:

The interesting thing here is that once again we have a scientist, Enstrom,  who depends on tobacco or fossil fuels dollars for his research. This doesn't, of course, change anything about Tran, but it is intesting to note that the American Cancer Society called Enstrom to task for a study he did in 2003: 

The study: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/cont...

The American Cancer Society's response: http://www.cancer.org/docro...

This controversy has made him an outcast at UCLA 

http://articles.latimes.com...

http://www.insidehighered.c...

and was deemed important enought for the Scientific Integrity Institute to record on their website: http://www.scientificintegr... (Note, this is the same organization that is commonly referenced in the Tran affair).

Here, btw, is a record of Enstrom's long relationship with tobacco bucks.

http://www.tobacco.org/reso...

So, once again we have funded opinions on the one side and government employees on the other.

If that isn't enough to settle the 'who's dirtier?' question, then let's just move on to the only reasonable position one can take here:

(I know, I'm repeating myself) Let's back another study. Of course, we would have to do our best to make it nonpartisan, etc...

lois, these people are going to argue with you because they drank the air cool-aide.....youre going to get it from them regardless.  I feel it best to just ignore the handful of them, as they constantly argue, but cannot point to ANY validity as to why their argument holds water....

anyway, did you notice that hush bimbo called CARB tyrants?  i have another name for them...  C.A.N.   California Air Nazis

they were referred to as tyrants because they were attempting to outlaw the color black as a choice for automobile paint, due to excessive heat and the need to use AC more, thus depleting MPG (funny how the prius and other "green" vehicles are offered in black)

CARB's whole primus is built on lies.  they also use fear-mongering to scare the public into their "dirty air" agenda, when, right on their website, their statistics say that our air is the cleanest its been since data was recorded...down to less than a quarter of bad air days than merely 5 years ago, along with less than 80% of ozone particulates than just 4 years ago.....yet they still beat their agenda drum.

they are all liars, IMO, most of them just havent got caught yet.

BTW....dont ever ask AirQualityGuy to link anything, because he will just shoot you the google search engine link.....(i think he's a fraud)

Keep up the government watchdog approach lois, you are doing a good job....better than any of the above posters, governement LAPDOGS could have done.

hey dirty shirt....ask airqualityguy for a link to the study.......since he's in the industry....he should have it handy, to back up all his inconclusive arguements.....dont fret if he sends you a google link, and tries to talk his way around it with some liberal psycho-babble though

learnem: you can be so reasonable at times. 

Do you have to buy into the mush-headed hatefulness? 

"Liberal psycho-babble"? Really?

I already indicated some ability at critical thought toward airqualityguy, I would think, from my earlier post. I believe that is why you included a post to me.

So, you recognize at least a spark of critical ability in my post, correct? Doesn't that lead you to want and lower the flame? Even a little?

DirtyShirt,

SORRY for my double chastisement!!! (is that a word) I was on a lap top and everything went blank for a minute and I couldn't tell if my first comment had posted. Being the impatient tech dummy I am, I just reposted without checking for the first post.

Sorry!

No problem. How do you feel about the tobacco money behind Enstrom?

Okay. I'll post twice because you owe me!!   ; )

What about tobacco money behind Enstrom? No comment?

I believe learnem's assessment was correct.  It's now August 3, more than four months since "airqualityguy" was last heard from.  Gone, like smoke in the wind ...  And dirtyshirt?  Looks like he puts too much faith in the LA Times.  The Main Stream Press has been creating controversy where the is none and ignoring controversy when it doesn't suit their aims at least since the days of William Randolph Hearst.  As far as we know, Dr. Enstrom got his credentials legitimately, instead of buying them from a diploma mill run by an serial child molester who posed as a rabbi and "community psychologist" and who escaped prosecution in New York by fleeing to Israel.

You can find all sorts of documents, such as the actual "Notice of Adverse Action" that CARB put out on Tran at www.box.net/carb In the Notice which was authored by CARB you can read all about the deceit and lying he continued to do and also CARB declaring him the lead author of the study that was used, and the fact that his fraud called the entire study into question.

You can also download the photo of the University where he later purchased his mailorder Ph.D. To some of you this may be funny to those of us affected by these rules it is sickening.

The Notice is towards the bottom of the files on that site, but you can also download the letter signed by 52 CA Legislators to suspend the diesel rules based on the current economy.  The Legislators are on both sides of the isle, so dirtyshirt, you are on the fringe trust me, and the tide is turning.

Lois you are so right on the money. This guy told the job interviewer what he wanted to hear in order to get his job, and he constructed studies to have outcomes so he could KEEP his job.

I have read the study, and when the numbers are compared to other EPA and environmental group studies, they just don't add up. Tran attributes a large number of premature deaths to Particulate Matter, the vast majority of which comes from naturally occurring environmental DUST. But epidemiological studies of rates and prevalance of lung disease show NO correlation to high levels of environmental dust OR environmental diesel PM. Yes Coal miners do get Black Lung, and if you stand next to idling Diesel rigs all day MAYBE it's not such a good idea- but the pack and half of Pall Malls folks suck down everyday is far worse- but we still sell them don't we.

The biggest gap in these studies is they DO NOT consider the health effects of the tremendous job loss this regulation will cost. In this Depression, with its "Jobless" recovery, those losing their jobs from this regulation will remain unemployed for a very long time. They will not be abl to afford COBRA payments and lose their health insurance coverage, eventually their homes, and may become homeless. Even for families that avoid the worst of the outcomes of losing their job, the negative effects on the entire families health is very well documented in study after study.

It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that eliminating jobs in this environment will have a dramatic and direct negative outcome on health for the working class of California. So go ahead and "Clean the Air for All" while killing off some poor kids-who cares about the working class anyway, they don't hug trees.