I hope so, or else I'm in the wrong place...
The "science" upon which the EPA rules on diesel emissions are based have proven to be false.
While I am certainly willing to entertain that idea, you must understand that I can not simply assume that "science" is wrong based on your statement. If you have specific examples I would be more than happy to discuss them further. You never know - I might be able to back your assertion up.
Does that concern you?
Not yet, but you have an opportunity to change my mind.
IOW, do you think that the government should have to have some logic behind forcing individuals and companies to change what they are doing,
Yes, I do. I would like to discuss the details of you assertions further however. I assume that you have some logic behind your assertation that would be much more useful in this discussion than generalizations. or do you think that it's OK for America to be a fascist state with the government controlling industry?
Nope. I do think however that responsibility is the key to conservatism.
The tightening of diesel emissions was based upon an EPA study which linked small particulate emissions to athsma. I believe that study has proven to be junk science, which has unfortunately not stopped the new regulations. Maybe I'm wrong.
Report Linking Deaths To Small Particulate In The Air Flawed By Computer Glitch!