"Climate Change" Not the ONLY Power-and-Money Scam

We understand--now--that "anthropocentric" climate change is bullshit.  The climate changes, but mankind has almost nothing to do with it.  Normal human beings get that--but Follow The Money is the rule to know:  EPA and NASA are power-hungry beasts who have a lot of money to throw at compliant "scientists" who give them the results that they want.

And that's hardly the first instance of EPA's power-and-money scams.

...Even before the manipulation of numbers became commonplace, the manipulation of words was a major tool in keeping the fear alive. Simple words in common usage, like “risk”, “known”, “similar” and “equivalent” were given esoteric meanings that bore little resemblance to their definitions in Webster’s Dictionary and of which the general public was completely unaware.

Thus, unbeknownst to the average citizen, EPA’s so-called quantitative cancer risk assessments have never quantitatively assessed the true risk of potentially carcinogenic exposures. In EPA’s 1986 Risk Assessment Guidelines, the following, uncharacteristically honest, and seldom quoted (except by me) statement was made: “The true risk is unknown and may be as low as zero.” Obviously, if the “true” risk is unknown, then the “risk” that is supposedly quantified in EPA risk assessments cannot be the “true” risk. Throughout my career as an ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] toxicologist, I routinely quoted the “zero true risk” statement in all of my toxicological evaluations for health assessments that addressed potential cancer hazards on site. And, it never failed to irritate agency management, and even some of my colleagues....

Oh. 

Well, that's interesting.  Any other Clinton-esque word games? 

Why Yessssssss!!  Yessirreee, Bob!

...a substance could be classified as a “known Human Carcinogen” only if sufficient epidemiological evidence existed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cancer and exposure to that substance. However, in 1996 (the date of the first draft), EPA rewrote its Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines (CRAGs) to allow it to classify substances as known human carcinogens in the absence of any epidemiological evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship....

Just spitballing here, but how many "personal injury" liars lawyers have close relatives at EPA?  How many EPA/ATSDR employees have extra-large offshore bank accounts??  Hmmmmmmm?

How about dioxin??

...what [EPA/ATSDR] didn’t acknowledge was that their in-house definition of the word “similar” was “within a factor of ten.” By that definition, 10 and 99 aspirin tablets would represent “similar” doses of acetylsalicylic acid. Except that 10 tablets would upset your stomach, while 99 would most likely kill you....

There's a lot more; like--for example--why EPA uses rats as a measuring -stick for "dose" calibration.  (Hint:  rats are much smaller than humans and breathe a lot faster....)

As the author states, EPA' initial success in identifying and eliminating a bunch of problems led to the current FantasyLand inventions of "Death by XXXXXXX".  The Power-and-Money Addiction had taken over by the time the real problems were solved, so they simply invent new ones.