Greedy Eco-liars!!!-----Harvard, Syracuse Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules

Harvard, Syracuse Researchers Caught Lying to Boost Obama Climate Rules - Breitbart
E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted “independent(ly)” of the agency.
In early May, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change purported to support a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants.
The New York Times’ headline, “EPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds,” typified the media coverage.
Across the media, the authors were innocuously described as simply university-affiliated “researchers.”
After all, the researchers had declared they had “no competing financial interests” in their study.
Both universities had issued media releases heralding the study as the “first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind.”
...But a closer look at these claims of independence raises serious doubts.
An online search of EPA’s web site revealed that Syracuse’s Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA.
Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million.
Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants.
Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA....
This issue goes deeper than mere truth-telling. 
The EPA’s controversial Clean Power Plan hinges on the notion that shuttering coal plants will save lives.
As EPA values each life “saved” at about $10 million, the claim that the rules will save 6,600 lives per year puts the rules’ alleged benefits on the order of $66 billion per year, far in excess of industry projections of the rules’ costs.
These EPA claims, however, are controversial to say the least.
A compelling alternate view is that no lives will be saved because, for one reason, EPA’s own extensive clinical research shows that particulate matter and ozone in outdoor air do not kill anyone..."