Academics and their conspiracy-minded followers are always the first to suggest that anyone who debunks their claims must be shills for Big Evil, but Science 2.0 gets no money from any polluter (and in the past, when I have challenged academics who insist Science Is A Corporate Conspiracy by offering to show the donor list in return for a bet that would be a tax-deductible donation if they lost, none have taken me up on it) (1)
Here is the problem. They write, for example, that Between "1970 and 2017, combined emissions of six common pollutants (PM2.5 and PM10, SO2, NOx, VOCs, CO and Pb) dropped by 73%, while the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased" but then claim it is now rising.
Small micron particulate matter (PM 2.5), despite their scaremongering narrative, has not been shown to cause a single death. Not since 2017 and not since 1970. Instead, when you overlay PM2.5 surges, such as with wildfires, deaths have either normal variation or bizarrely dropped. So why lump it in with actual smog (PM10) which has been shown to kill people?
It's the Frankenstein monster approach to science, made famous in climate science in the 1990s, where you use two different data sets to achieve the graphical result you want for political action. It's terrible science and its lingering curse is why so many people won't trust climate models 20 years later.
(1) For obvious reason. You won't get a gig at the New York University if you are not left wing and sympathetic to the conspiracy narrative.
