Category Archives: Social Commentary

Peer Review

It’s gotten to the point that it’s worse than useless, and has become an active shield against actual scientific inquiry:

…according to you, the NAS committee was right to ignore these official documents because they were not “peer reviewed.” What does it even mean to “peer review” official EPA documents?

You have similarly dismissed the evidence presented of clear and present conflicts of interest between EPA and the NAS board (BEST) that sponsored and organized the review. What does it mean to have evidence of conflicts of interest “peer reviewed”?

Is it a “violation of [NAS] policy” to consider official EPA documents and other documented evidence of potential NAS/EPA wrongdoing in a review of a controversy borne out of acknowledged EPA wrongdoing?

The other chief witnesses (Drs. John Dunn & Stan Young) at the August 24, 2016 public hearing (which was held for the specific purpose of taking our testimony) cited specific EPA documents and peer-reviewed literature in their testimony.

The other two commenters at the hearing (Dr. James Enstrom and Albert Donnay) also cited peer-reviewed literature.

But the NAS committee inexplicably ignored everything we presented. And now you have as well.

Although the NAS has a conflict of interest policy, you have not even bothered to consider my request in the context of this policy. So why have the policy if it will not be applied?

The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.

[Update late morning]

The saga continues.

[Friday morning update]

The obfuscation continues in round three.

[Bumped]

Why Hillary Lost

You’ll be as shocked as I am to learn it was because of Hillary:

The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her.

While the campaign projected a ­drama-free tenor, it was reminiscent of other moments of frustration.

Months earlier, Hillary Clinton turned her fury on her consultants and campaign aides, blaming them for a failure to focus the media on her platform.

In her ear the whole time, spurring her on to cast blame on others and never admit to anything, was her husband. Neither Clinton could accept the simple fact that Hillary had hamstrung her own campaign and dealt the most serious blow to her own presidential aspirations.

She is a corrupt incompetent hack, who no one would have ever heard of if she hadn’t married Bill Clinton.

The Erosion Of The Second Amendment

Why “liberals” should be concerned about it.

They’re not concerned about it because they’re not liberals — they’re leftists who are perfectly fine with the government having a monopoly on firearms (as long as they’re in charge of the government).

[Update a couple minutes later]

Nice to see that some commenters at Glenn’s site are making similar comments to mine. Stop calling leftists liberals.