CARB can't ignore credibility problems (bogus data, bogus agenda)

When you have it, it's like a rock in your fist. But despite its power, it can be as fragile as an eggshell -- handle it with care or it'll shatter into a gooey mess.

That's what I believe the California Air Resources Board members have on their hands as they bull forward with the diesel emissions rules they passed last December based on a health report written by CARB researcher Hien Tran.

He was outted to both CARB staffers and at least one board member prior to the Dec. 12, 2008 vote on the diesel rules.

But the board went ahead with the draconian rules requiring all trucks and heavy equipment to retrofit their engines to reduce emissions containing particulate matter as small as 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

The idea is to protect people from the effects of PM2.5, which is blamed by some researchers for killing off hundreds of Californians a year. At least that's one side. Other studies have found little to no effect on mortality from PM2.5.

Tran discounted those opposition studies. And the researchers whose studies he used have never opened their data sets to independent scientists to see if their results could be replicated, so I think it's still highly questionable whether PM2.5 is as deadly as it's been made out to be. But that's a different story.

Though one CARB spokesperson initially told me board members were told briefed in closed session, another told me the materials were "made available to those who asked."

At the board's meeting last month, member John Telles was clearly shocked when a group of public speakers brought it up.

"This is the first time I've actually been apprised that there was fraud in the organization here," he said. "In my world, if an article was published by somebody who didn't have a Ph.D. and said he had a Ph.D., the whole thing would be nixed...I just find it incredible."

I spoke with Telles later and he was equally frustrated that CARB staffers said during the meeting not to worry because they had shopped the report around again for more peer review to make sure it was kosher.

"The board should have been made aware that they were seeking outside sources for a second review to see if there was a problem," Telles said.

He considered the whole affair a blow to the board's credibility, especially among businesses that come directly under the new regulations, which will cost owners tens of thousands of dollars per truck.

Fellow board member, John Balmes, who was apparently the only board member who knew about the allegations prior to the Dec. 12 CARB meeting, felt it could have been handled better, but he stood by the report and the regulations.

He didn't bring it to his fellow board members' attention, he said, because he had notified CARB's executive director James Goldstene.

Regardless of Tran's transgressions, Balmes said the extensive peer review of the report was good enough for him. Not for me, but I'll get back to that in a minute.

Further, Balmes said even if the report were taken out of the equation CARB could justify the truck rule it passed last December.

"It (Tran's report) is a risk assessment tool that's been applied to support the on-road truck rule, but it's not the reason for the rule."

I disagree that Tran's report wasn't pivotal and I think Balmes himself makes my point.

"The main purpose of the report was to provide a tool for the ARB to use in determining how much in terms of health benefits the regulation would provide."

He took a number of studies showing PM2.5 as deadly dangerous (carefully excluding those that showed no increased mortality due to PM2.5), he averaged death rates from different studies and then created a methodology for figuring out how many lives would be saved by taking a certain amount of PM2.5 out of the atmosphere annually.

Of course, Balmes and CARB staffers have a ready answer to that in the much-touted peer review, which they say upholds the report by Tran (who they now refer to as "a person who managed some aspects" of the report rather than the lead author, by the way).

Here's the thing, though, only the draft report was given to six of the reviewers.

It's unclear if they ever read the final report, or the 150 pages of public comments, much of which came from scientists who disputed its findings.

As a side note, Balmes told me he also never read the final version with the public comments. Huh? First, am I the only sucker who did? Second, how do you vote on regulations based on a report when you only read the draft?

Also in the peer review process, nearly half of 12 scientists who weighted the studies used by Tran were authors or co-authors of those very studies. Not exactly an unbiased group.

I asked CARB for a list of names of reviewers who were contacted after they discovered the Tran deception. There were 10. Again, four of those had studies used in the report.

Even as Balmes characterized the Tran issue as a "tactic" being used by people who don't like the new rules he understood that if it wasn't handled properly "it would come back to bite the ARB."

No, it wasn't handled properly and, yeah, it's taken a big ol' chunk out of CARB's credibility.

When Jan 1 arrives and trucks do not deliver goods to California, then maybe someone over there will get the message.

Private haulers cannot afford these ‘retrofits’.

Larger trucking companies cannot retrofit a fleet all at once, either.
One large trucking company has already stated that they will no longer haul into California.

What about a U-Haul truck? You rent it in N Dakota to move to your new job in California (if you get one) and get stopped at the border because this truck doesn’t meet the regulations?????

The fools in Sacramento get dumber every day.

Back in the mid 90’s I was managing editor of the California Landscape Contractor Association's trade magazine.

I forget what year it was but the CARB was trying, during that time, to impose emissions standards and regulation on outdoor power equipment (one of their more foolish and unworkable ideas).

The CLCA sent a lobbying contingent to Sacramento to try and educate the moron in the legislature why this was a really bad idea. While there, we were scheduled to meet with the head of CARB.

I forget here name, but the woman who stepped up to the podium looked like she came from central casting for “frumpy female Berkeley female studies professor”, (one step up in dress from a corner bag-lady) and wearing Birkinstocks and granny glasses to boot.

After several of the association members asked their questions (which went un-answered with rambling mutterings from the bag-lady), it was my turn. I needed some good articles for the next issue of the magazine.

Since MTBE was just breaking as the latest scandal the CARB was trying to duck, I asked why the CARB had approved a water-insoluble carcinogen as a fuel additive.

Her face blanched. She hurriedly checked her watch. Then she ran for the door as fast as her unshaved, Birkinstock-clad cankles could carry her—muttering over her shoulder about another meeting she had to rush off to.

CARB is the most discredited bunch of psuedo-science-quacks in the country, and have been for many years. Its run by activists with no scientific credentials or credibility. Nothing they say should ever be believed.

And, they refuse to be accountable for any of the problems they cause while on their mission to save the planet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.