2nd exhibit refuting Dr. NG’s criticism of a review about man-made global warming (John D Dunn)

Sent by e-mail to many scientists, medical professionals and engineers concerned about truth in the debate about use of fossil fuels.

Second exhibit to refute criticism of a global review by Professor Happer about catastrophic man-made global warming and man-made sea-level rise disasters John Dale Dunn MD JD, e-mail: jddmdjd@web-access.net April 6, 2019 This is my second exhibit to refute the assertion that the NAS, AAAS, Government Agency sponsored scientists that make up the "establishment" of science create a reliable "consensus" and Dr. Happer's committee is an offense to the science integrity project.

My first exhibit sent yesterday showed how EPA sponsored epidemiological science on air pollution was so weak and fraudulent that they violated ethical norms to promote and sponsor human exposure experiments, winking and nodding with the medical schools engaged (Rochester, Rutgers, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Washington, UCLA, USC, New Mexico) that the EPA claims about lethality, toxicity and carcinogenicity of small particle ambient air pollution were just an exaggeration. No harm, no foul yes, the EPA claims were exaggerated, the exposure experiments were not harmful, was declared in a whitewash by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The cottage industry of air pollution nabobs continues, however, to make fraudulent claims about deaths caused by ambient air pollution. They have now taken their show on the road, talking about 3rd world air pollution deaths and annual planet deaths in the millions, all based on fraudulent epidemiology, and taking advantage of the scare environmental political culture--promotion of the precautionary principle as a risk management guideline.

This second exhibit to refute claims about the legitimacy of "establishment" and "consensus" making, is the scandal of Linear No Threshold Radiation Biophysics and Toxicology, now 7 decades long and still going strong with unrepentant support from the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the "establishment" scientific community Dr. NG recommends so highly.

1

Dr. Ed Calabrese has investigated the development and solidification of Linear No Threshold (LNT) radiation biophysics and then LNT general toxicology as established by the self-described "leadership" of the scientific community in their consensus statements.

I explained yesterday how the EPA bought junk epidemiology on air pollution that made unfounded claims about mortality from ambient air pollutants and the EPA kept trumpeting that air pollution killed hundreds of thousands annually at the same time it was funding human exposure experiments and yet getting a pass on it because the National Research Council (NRC) the research arm of the NAS said it wasn't really that lethal.

Well Herman Muller and other leading scientists committed a fraud as explained in these Calabrese papers that relate the details of his multiyear in-depth investigation of the establishment of Linear No Threshold (LNT) and the scientific misconduct of Muller and Stern, but many others that left us with a false scientific totem--LNT. The NAS and "establishment" science community committed to LNT continue that commitment, that flies in the face of the old and true maxim of Paracelsus--the dose makes the poison and significant research discussed by Dr. Calabrese that refutes the LNT canard.

As a physician, particularly an Emergency Physician I knew that there were thresholds for toxic effect of poisons and things that can be toxic above a threshold, just as there were good ranges for beneficial effects for drugs, and it wasn't until I started studying EPA sponsored environmental science and the oncological toxicology of public health agencies that I realized they were just plain fraudulent scientific activities intended to support aggressive environmental regulatory efforts--everything was a risk, no safe level was the mantra.

Read Dr. Calabrese on the continuing scandal of LNT perpetrated by the "establishment" science that is promoted without reservation, reviews and articles by Calabrese and other scientists who are not participating in the fraud, using bad methods and making claims that are not based on reliable research.

The first paper is Dr. Calabrese's most recent and certainly his most thorough review of the Herman Muller (Nobel Laureate) scandal followed on by misconduct of the BEAR and BEIR committees. I highlighted it.

Linear-No-Threshold Model Assessment, November 26, 2018 by Dr. Edward Calabrese with highlights by Dr. John Dale Dunn

2

The second paper is a summary of Dr. Calabrese's investigations in a paper published in the long time Science/Economics/Politics Magazine published by CATO Institute, Regulation. Dr. Calabrese was a research advisor for the CATO and a member of a CATO scientific integrity project for the past few years. He is reigning expert on hormesis in toxicology—the phenomenon of beneficial effects of toxins in ranges below the toxic threshold. Dr. Calabrese has done hormetic research in chemicals and radiation biophysics.

Troubled History of Cancer Risk Assessment, Spring 2019 by Dr. Edward Calabrese There is a lot of research on the unreliability of much of science, how it fails to replicate-yada yada, but actually the failure to replicate meme is not so important as the p hacking (multiple testing and data cutting and dredging) in epidemiology and the no threshold/rats are just little people, claims of junk toxicologists.

The reasons these bad science patterns have developed is ideologues have been running agencies and government science projects and I repeat again what Joseph Schumpeter said--the first casualty of ideology is the truth. The “establishment” promotes a narrative and assertions of an ideology, they present the arguments of deceptive ideologues, cites the work of other likeminded ideologues. Such scientists and their allies betray the first rule of science, be your own most serious and skeptical critic.

I would add that ideologues are smart enough to find ways to ignore the evidence and promote fraud. In the case of fraud in climate science, the refutation of the fraud doesn’t require higher math—just look at historical levels of CO2 and the evidence that the biosphere prospered without catastrophic negative effects.

I can say as a human biologist that humans benefit from warmer temps because of a reduction in vascular events, strokes and heart attacks, but also respiratory infections and illnesses. Any warming would reduce the world wide toll of cool and cold related diseases and infections. Spending trillions to try to manage and manipulate the climate assumes too much—the fanatics can’t tell anyone what would be the benefit unless they put up a fraud crisis about the impact of warming. Scientific honesty and adherence to the evidence is essential, not fraudulent science in pursuit of a scare that promotes an ideological goal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In spite of the Dooms Day Gloom proclaimed by Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists in North America and Europe, the world is an incredibly wonderful place. Fossil fuels are the primary source of reliable and affordable energy. It’s time to quit pretending that the world is coming to an end because of fossil fuels. It is time to retire the fraudulent claims of radiation biophysics LNT promoters. The Human Race is better off 3

with energy provided by carbon-based and certainly nuclear energy resources.

Alternative sources except for hydro are expensive, unreliable, and ironically environmentally damaging. Solar and wind farms are not just eyesores, they use resources that are expensive to obtain and pollute the environment that they are supposed to be protecting. Don’t get me started on the terrible and inexcusable solar and wind farm impacts on animal and plant life for what?—could such environmental posturing that destroys wildlife and plant life for no net benefit even pass the smell or laugh test?

John Dale Dunn MD JD, e-mail: jddmdjd@web-access.net Brownwood, Texas Fossil fuels have made the world a much better and more beautiful place in many instances. They are essential to help those who still don’t have sound government, strong economies, good education, peace, respect for the environment and nature.

Vibrant, thriving cities all around the world need reliable, affordable, plentiful energy from fossil fuels, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

4

Nature is protected from plunder by humans having plentiful energy. Just look 1000, 2000 years back at deforestation by a much smaller world population.

There still is plenty of snow and cold weather. The terrible alarms about catastrophic man-made global warming are political witch hunts and false science.

5