Another case of scientific fraud, this time involving costly pollution controls?
Bookworm on Dec 09 2009 at 9:49 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
My post title is a bit of an exaggeration. It’s not clear that the science is fraudulent. It’s just clear that the scientist is fraudulent:
A sweeping California regulation aimed at cutting hazardous pollution from diesel engine exhaust could be derailed after a key state researcher on the project was caught in a lie about his academic credentials.
The California Air Resources Board is scheduled to meet today to discuss whether to delay the implementation of the regulation because of the weak economy, which some experts claim has led to a drop in diesel emissions. But that discussion has been overshadowed by revelations about the researcher’s trumped-up resume.
Two of the 11 air board members have asked that the anti-pollution rules be suspended because they were partially based on a report by Hien Tran that found particulates in diesel emissions account for 3,500 premature deaths a year in California. Tran falsely claimed he had a doctorate in statistics from UC Davis.
“I’ve been on the air board 14 years and I’ve never seen anything approaching this,” said Ron Roberts, who also is a San Diego County supervisor. He added that the air board should do everything it can to assure the public “the science is proper to arrive at legitimate decisions.”
[snip]
Tran, whose estimate of 3,500 deaths was higher than previous estimates, does have a doctorate in statistics, but he obtained it from Thornhill University, a distance learning school. He has a master’s degree in the subject from UC Davis.
Tran, who has worked at the air board for 11 years, was demoted and his salary was cut by $1,066 per month to $7,899 per month. He was not fired.
Read the rest here.
The regulation at issue is no small thing, since it is estimated that it will cost the trucking industry $5.5 billion dollars. That’s a big chunk of money, all of which you know will show up as significantly higher prices in stores. That’s always painful, but especially so during rescessions.
Related posts:
- Evidence of global warming scam and massive collusion in the “scientific” community
- A modest proposal to decrease air pollution
- Fascinating stuff involving The New Republic
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “Another case of scientific fraud, this time involving costly pollution controls?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Room – Another case of scientific fraud, this time involving costly pollution controls? Share and [...]
Despite misrepresenting himself, he’s still getting almost $100,000.00 annually of taxpayer money.
I noticed that too. It also seems as if the only punishment for fraud ab initio is a little salary decline, rather than a boot to the backside, along with a short, one way trip down the stairs and out the front door of his office building.
We’ve just had a stinging reminder that scientists are human beings, and can cheat if they think that winning on the issue is important enough to them.
Yet, here’s a guy who LIED about his credentials in order to get the job (apparently it was really important to him, so he cheated), and despite the fact that he’s a human whose job requires him to do work that will influence the outcome of issues on which he may very well have an opinion….despite this, they keep the liar on the public payroll and risk the downside – that he’ll lie about the results of his work in order to influence the process in the direction he prefers.
Really stupid.
Stupid or corrupt, Earl? It’s just that societal, government, academic and business standards all seem to be spiraling to a lowest common denominator that has yet to be established. This is what happens to societies de-moored from a Judeo-Christian morality and ethic with no standards of accountability. It exists because we (collectively) accept it because we delude ourselves that we aren’t personally affected by what some guy in California gets away with.
So, is this guy any worse than the other “scientists” and science czars that are running the country today. As a scientist, I am mortified at the tarnished brand of “science” today.
Wonder if there is someone else who applied for his job who could sue for fraud – or something…!
I’m not sure _who_ they’d sue, but for the scientist at least.
In addition to the fraud angle” If these regulations inhibit the use of diesel engines for automobiles, then they will almost certainly result in additional oil consumption, since diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines. Did the regulators consider this offset?
Also: I don’t know if the regulations apply to railway locomotives (which are all diesel-powered except for the Northeast Corridor)…but if they do, they could have a severe negative impact on California’s economy. A high % of the container freight arriving at Long Beach and other west coast ports goes on railcars for inland deliveries.
You can’t focus on optimizing one factor in isolation without causing serious problems with an overall system.