A Fraudulent "Ph.D" in California With Politically Correct Results Keeps His Job, While A Real UCLA Ph.D. Scientist Gets Fired For Dissenting
UCLA Professor Enstrom goes up against California's "environmental regulation machine" and gets fired.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) claims that diesel particulates, a type of pollution emitted from buses and trucks, contributes to 2,000 premature deaths in California each year.
Hien T. Tran was the lead scientist who wrote the report upon which the heavy duty truck and bus regulations are based. He bought a $1,000 mail order Ph.D. from Thornhill "University" located at 255 Madison, New York. Using his fake Ph.D., the unqualified liar applied for and got the position as Manager of the Health and Ecosystem Assessment Section claiming he has a Ph.D. in statistics from UC-Davis. Some of the board members, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation. The board members who knew, kept the information from other board members for nearly a year after the vote. The Governor also had the information and failed to take action.
Reason.tv -- UCLA epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom says the number of premature deaths should be closer to zero. In 2005 Enstrom authored an extensive study that found no relationship between diesel particulates and premature deaths. He says his study, as well as other evidence that agrees with it, have been ignored by an agency bent on passing ever more stringent regulations regardless of their effect on California's economy.
Enstrom blew the whistle on CARB for, among other things, failing to publicize that the lead author of the study that was used to justify the new regulations falsified his education history (he purchased his PhD from an online diploma mill). But UCLA didn't come to Enstrom's defense. In fact, officials informed him that, after 34 years at the university, he was out of a job.
"The environmental regulation machine in California is powerful," says Adam Kissel of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is defending Enstrom in the fight to keep his job. "When Dr. Enstrom went up against that machine he was retaliated against." A hearing that begins on April 4 will determine whether Dr. Enstrom keeps his job, and the final decision rests with UCLA Chancellor Gene Block.
Says Kissel, "If Dr. Enstrom loses his job because he exercised his academic freedom, then it's a message to other researchers that you'd better not rock the boat because you might be next."
And what happened to the fraudulent "Doctor" Tran? He got a 60-day suspension and a demotion, but still works as an air pollution specialist for the state of California despite his record of fraudulent misrepresentation of his academic credentials.
Bottom Line: In California, it's more important that your scientific results are politically correct than scientifically accurate, and as long as your results are politically correct, it doesn't matter if you've fraudulently misrepresented your credentials.
And what happened to the fraudulent "Doctor" Tran? He got a 60-day suspension and a demotion, but still works as an air pollution specialist for the state of California despite his record of fraudulent misrepresentation of his academic credentials.
Bottom Line: In California, it's more important that your scientific results are politically correct than scientifically accurate, and as long as your results are politically correct, it doesn't matter if you've fraudulently misrepresented your credentials.
29 Comments:
Was it ever about science at all? I see the whole argument about man-made global warming an example of human arrogance: We believe we have more control than we actually do.
We may have little ability to control what happens in the atmosphere and still have culpability for it.
So, Jason, how much science would it take, before you change your mind?
If the answer is never, then you are correct: it is not about science.
Hydra, there are at least two problems with climatology models:
1. How can climatologists create a sound general equilibrium model to explain the climate when economists cannot create a sound general equilibrium model to explain a macroeconomy, which is smaller than a (global) climate model?
2. Human history has been short. So, how can the data explain human influence on the climate when humans didn't exist in almost 100% of the data?
I hope this story is hyped...sounds truly awful
1. Financial models have the problem that participants in the system are trying to use the models themselves as a basis for interventions in the system, which isn't a comparable problem for the climate system. (It could perhaps become one with geoengineering.) The projections of future temperature change James Hansen presented to Congress in 1988 turned out to be pretty accurate (scenario B).
2. There doesn't seem to be any model that accords with observed temperature changes without human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions as a primary factor. The physics of greenhouse gases is well established.
My favorite few sentences from this video:
"In the world we live in you can't really separate science from politics. That's very very unfortunate. The money that researchers need to do their research comes from agencies that have to generate that money on the basis of frequently public fears." Professor Robert Phalen
This comment has been removed by the author.
A macroeconomy has hundreds of major dynamic forces, pushing and pulling the economy.
I suspect, there are also hundreds of major dynamic forces affecting the climate. The significance of human influence is unknown.
The global economy could give up a hundred trillion dollars in lost output over several decades and it may not have a significant impact on global warming.
Hien T Tran recieved this Adverse Action Letter from the state of California. The state had a lot of evidence but it must be hard to fire a liar or anyone else, who commits acts of malfeasance and fraud.
Mary Nichols, head of CARB,
apologizes for Hien Tran Coverup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YaTbiWxLg
Quote from Amateur Economist: "My favorite few sentences from this video: "In the world we live in you can't really separate science from politics. That's very very unfortunate. The money that researchers need to do their research comes from agencies that have to generate that money on the basis of frequently public fears." Professor Robert Phalen"
Some people insist that environmental policies (whatever that means) should not be politicized. Everything the government does is politicized.
The real driving force behind environmentalism is the same driving force behind Keynesianism and monetarism: power and money.
"We may have little ability to control what happens in the atmosphere and still have culpability for it"...
LMAO!
Typical of liberals, got a dumb idea then run with it...
You sound just like chief EPA parasite Lisa Jackson...
The global clinate change scam is an an attempt at wealth redistribution by the IPCC...
"The projections of future temperature change James Hansen presented to Congress in 1988 turned out to be pretty accurate (scenario B)"...
ROFLMAO!
Hansen is a proven fraud...
So, Jason, how much science would it take, before you change your mind?
Hydra, how about the minimum amount of unbiased scientific examination? The whole man-made global warming dogma is based on increasing greenhouse gases MUST result in the increasing temperatures measured.
The fact that ice packs have been melting for 10000 years is somehow irrelevant. Or the continued lack of a solar emissivity model. Or the continued discoveries of ocean currents, that by the way, have far more impact historically than CO2 levels.
Anyone who says things like "correlation is not causality" is laughed out of the club. And since when is scientific discovery a democratic process? If I hear "a majority of scientists agree humans are to blame for global warming" one more time, I may vomit. So if you take a vote it makes it truth?
Anytime we see a larger group seeking to use force, guile or misdirection to make a smaller group acquiesce, we SHOULD all ask questions. Given the incredible impact to our standard of living, we SHOULD be skeptical. We must be skeptical. Anything less is irresponsible
This is a pretty interesting article to add to the debate. It just highlights that underlying bias is present on both sides of this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&hp
Jim Lippard-
Looks like the train subsequently went off the tracks -
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
"Only in California..."
Huh? This type of behavior is common throughout governments and is not just a California phenomenon. The federal government has had numerous instances where people were hired or promoted based on fake diplomas. In some of those cases, the persons who lied to and defrauded the government retained their positions after being "outed."
At a VA medical center I worked at, the completely incompetent Chief of Information Technology (a GS 14 position) had only a high school diploma. She had no computer training. She had never customized a database or written a line of code. She had no understanding of computer hardware or networking. She was transferred to another GS 14 position as network manager for an entire VA region.
My sister worked as a comptroller for a town government in upstate NY. Her boss claimed to have a Bachelor of Arts in accounting, but he knew nothing about accounting. He had lied about his education but still kept the job (and blamed my sister for all his screwups).
DnQuiggs
"This is a pretty interesting article to add to the debate. It just highlights that underlying bias is present on both sides of this issue."
Are you seriously citing Paul Krugman, the once-upon-a-time economist, and now political hack, as a source of reliable information? Please tell me you are making a joke.
Who do you consider "both sides"? Climate scientists and Republicans?
It was never about science. It is about money and power.
Ron, I have listed other news sources related to this story. What I was trying to point out is that scientists and their supporter/donors on both sides of the climate debate only seem interested in looking at research that confirms their own biases. I wonder if that applies to you as well.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-me-berkeley-climate-20110331,0,5999527.story
DnQuiggs
My bias is against Paul Krugman as a credible source of information on any subject. The kindest thing that can be said about him is that he is inconsistent. He bills himself as an economist, yet frequently asserts obvious fallacies as economics. Now, here he is offering opinion on climate science.
You have provided another news story on the subject by one writer, that you found in two places, which at least gives the topic a less biased treatment than Krugman, but I'm not sure it helps support your point.
Please note the following from your source:
"Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined."
Peter Thorne, at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center had this to say:
"...But he said the Berkeley team had been "seriously compromised" by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.
First of all, one has to ask, why is someone testifying before Congress on work they have barely started? Second, one has to wonder why this seems newsworthy.
Doesn't this seem, to you, more like political theater than an attempt to advance our understanding of climate?
First of all, one has to ask, why is someone testifying before Congress on work they have barely started? Second, one has to wonder why this seems newsworthy.
That is a very good question. I suspect that he was looking for attention. The problem is that when you only look at 2% of the data and that has sampling problems it is hard to make any definitive statement.
That said, if the Berkley project does provide transparency it will be of value no matter what games are played by the people who are running it because anything that is done will be open to independent analysis.
Doesn't this seem, to you, more like political theater than an attempt to advance our understanding of climate?
It certainly does.
"That said, if the Berkley project does provide transparency it will be of value no matter what games are played by the people who are running it because anything that is done will be open to independent analysis."
I'm not sure that transparency at this point will be of much use. My understanding is that currently available temperature date has been manipulated and "corrected" beyond usefulness, and that for the most part, original raw data has been "lost".
The story here, seems to be that a scientist at Berkeley has unexpectedly found preliminary indications at odds with the conclusions his 'masters' had hoped for.
I'm not sure that transparency at this point will be of much use. My understanding is that currently available temperature date has been manipulated and "corrected" beyond usefulness, and that for the most part, original raw data has been "lost".
But that will help. If it becomes better known that the original data has been 'lost' and that the people making the changes did not archive the old data or explain in detail what the changes were the credibility will be even lower than it is now.
Sooner or later the 'scientists' will have to explain why changes like this is valid.
The story here, seems to be that a scientist at Berkeley has unexpectedly found preliminary indications at odds with the conclusions his 'masters' had hoped for.
Actually, it isn't. The story is that a scientist with connections to geoengineering interests testifies without having a complete or valid study that would support any conclusions. His analysis so far has problems with sampling bias and seems to assume that none of the original data was removed or 'adjusted' in the sources that he is using.
"Sooner or later the 'scientists' will have to explain why changes like this is valid."
I know the usual response to that one:
"The Lebanon station is obviously wrong, as everyone knows the Earth is warming, so we can disregard that data as an outlier, and use the average value from the stations closest to it in its place. We will still call it Lebanon temperature data."
That sort of "corrected" data and extrapolations when data is missing have made the USHCN data fairly meaningless.
If Dr. Muller and his team are merely rehashing that same corrected data, it's no wonder they reach the same conclusions as others.
Muller said his team would submit to peer-reviewed journals data that:
"measure the warming with more precision than in the past."
I can't imagine how that's possible, unless he has found records hidden in a cave somewhere, perhaps near the Dead Sea, that have escaped the attention of scientists before now.
I can only imagine that all existing records have been thoroughly squeezed for every drop of warming that can be gotten from them.
Perhaps Muller considers results rounded to 1000 of a degree to be more accurate, even though the margin of error is more like + or - 1 degree.
That sort of "corrected" data and extrapolations when data is missing have made the USHCN data fairly meaningless.
Actually, it is a lot harder to pull off the scam this time around. When the 'adjustments' were first made everyone assumed that the data keepers were honest and interested in the truth. That is no longer the case.
If Dr. Muller and his team are merely rehashing that same corrected data, it's no wonder they reach the same conclusions as others.
No doubt. But they will have to be transparent about what they are using and that will leave a trail for others to follow. We already know that once that happens people like SM will expose the problems with the manipulation.
Muller said his team would submit to peer-reviewed journals data that:
"measure the warming with more precision than in the past."
I can't imagine how that's possible, unless he has found records hidden in a cave somewhere, perhaps near the Dead Sea, that have escaped the attention of scientists before now.
It is not possible. If there is transparency that will become very obvious. Of course, Muller did not enhance his credibility when he claimed far more surface warming over the past century than GISS, CRU, or anyone else.
I can only imagine that all existing records have been thoroughly squeezed for every drop of warming that can be gotten from them.
No doubt. But the problem that he will have is the existence of the older data that will make it easy to follow and identify the problems with his reconstruction. I believe that this is why the warmers have such a hard time with him. By letting others see the work he will expose just how much of a fraud there was in the first place. This will be an interesting sideshow.
And by the way, I hope that you do not expect truth or sanity to win out easily. There is too much money and power at stake for that to happen. It is far better to look at the incentives and bet that the criminals will react to them in what is for them a rational manner even as you try to expose the fraud. That way you can still be on the side of truth and get rich at the same time.
VangelV
"Actually, it isn't. The story is that a scientist with connections to geoengineering interests testifies without having a complete or valid study that would support any conclusions."
Ahh! I missed the geoengineering connection. Now it all makes sense. Here's more.
"And by the way, I hope that you do not expect truth or sanity to win out easily. There is too much money and power at stake for that to happen."
I gave up on that idea a long time ago.
You are right about one thing, for sure. If Muller presents anything less than squeaky clean, he will wish he hadn't by the time McIntyre gets through with him. Good old Steve. although his writing is sometimes highly technical & even tedious, he is one of the best. He lever lets go of anything until he has gotten it to confess.
Good old Steve. although his writing is sometimes highly technical & even tedious, he is one of the best. He lever lets go of anything until he has gotten it to confess.
When history settles out it will be written that a mining analyst with a very high mathematical aptitude was order of magnitude better at understanding statistical methods and their applications than the scientists who were supposed to be experts on the subject.
"When history settles out it will be written that a mining analyst with a very high mathematical aptitude was order of magnitude better at understanding statistical methods and their applications than the scientists who were supposed to be experts on the subject."
I agree. The scientists appear to have little statistical skill, and have been scolded for it by Wegman, among others, with recommendations that the "hockey team" enlist some actual statisticians to ensure their work was correct.
Of course, with unbiased work, the results they preferred might not have been produced.
Post a Comment
<< Home