Cornwall Alliance

For the Stewardship of Creation

  • Home
  • About
    • Listen To Our Podcast “Created to Reign!”
    • Who We Are
    • What We Do
    • What Drives Us
    • Our History in Highlights
    • Cornwall Alliance Statement of Faith
  • Landmark Documents
  • Issues
  • Blog
  • Media
    • Press Releases
  • Shop
    • Books
    • DVDs
  • Contact
    • Challenging “Net-Zero”: Conquering Poverty While Stewarding the Earth in the Age of Climate Change
    • Summer Essay Contest!
    • Request a Talk Show Guest
    • Request Opinion Columns
    • Q&A Form
    • Request A Speaker
  • Donate
  • Get Our Newest Book: Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism

Take Secret Science Out of the EPA: An Open Letter in Support of Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science

by E. Calvin Beisner

May 18, 2018

Click here to sign the Open Letter.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” banning the agency’s use of “secret science” in formulating regulations, should be adopted. It is badly needed to assure American taxpayers that the EPA is truly acting in their best interests. Objections are groundless.

Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (STRS) provides that “When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.” It codifies what was intended in the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, and the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), both of which passed the House but never came up for vote in the Senate.

The rule is important to the integrity of EPA regulations because of a widely recognized crisis: Scientific studies, including those subjected to peer review, frequently are found to be irreproducible or to have false findings because they fail to meet high standards for data archiving, valid statistical analysis, experiment procedures, and other elements of valid research. Scientists widely acknowledge the reality of this crisis.[i]

Click here to sign the Open Letter.

Some opponents of STRS argue that peer review ensures the quality of studies published in refereed journals. But this widespread perception is false. As Richard Smith wrote in “Classical peer review: an empty gun,” published in Breast Cancer Review:

… almost no scientists know anything about the evidence on peer review. It is a process that is central to science—deciding which grant proposals will be funded, which papers will be published, who will be promoted, and who will receive a Nobel prize. We might thus expect that scientists, people who are trained to believe nothing until presented with evidence, would want to know all the evidence available on this important process. Yet not only do scientists know little about the evidence on peer review but most continue to believe in peer review, thinking it essential for the progress of science. Ironically, a faith based rather than an evidence based process lies at the heart of science.

Smith quotes Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review held quadrennially starting in 1989, as saying, “If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed on the market.”

We have particular interest in epidemiological studies of risks associated with certain toxins and climate studies related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also known as anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Many EPA regulations address these two concerns. Scientific societies and journals have often failed to maintain high standards of objectivity and research procedures related to both. Nonetheless, the EPA has formulated regulations based in whole or in part on such studies without adequately assessing them to see whether they meet high standards.[ii]

For example, the EPA has long regulated exposure to nuclear radiation on the basis of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model. Yet that model arose from a paper, “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation,” by the National Academies of Science Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, published in Science in 1956, which has since been severely criticized by many peer-reviewed publications. As the National Association of Scholars points out in a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt supporting STRS, “This is a consequential matter that bears on a great deal of national public policy, as the LNT model has served as the basis for risk assessment and risk management of radiation and chemical carcinogens for decades. A reassessment of that model could profoundly alter many regulations from the [EPA], the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other government agencies.”[iii]

In these circumstances, it is essential that all scientific studies used by regulators to justify regulations meet the highest standard of credibility. That is the aim of STRS.

Click here to sign the Open Letter.

As the EPA pointed out in announcing the proposed rule, “The benefits of EPA ensuring that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation are that it will improve the data and scientific quality of the Agency’s actions and facilitate expanded data sharing and exploration of key data sets; this is consistent with the conclusions of the National Academies.”

In addition to the claim that peer review alone is sufficient quality control, opponents of the proposed rule raise two primary objections. Both fail.

The most common, and on first blush credible, objection is that the rule would prevent the EPA from using studies that involved confidential information, such as personal health data or corporate proprietary information. In an open letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the political-activist Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued, “there are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and privacy concerns.”[iv]

We wonder whether such critics have even read the proposed rule. Section 30.5 expressly states:

Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security.

And Section 30.9 says:

The Administrator may grant an exemption to this subpart on a case-by-case basis if he or she determines that compliance is impracticable because:

(a) It is not feasible to ensure that all dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science is publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation, in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security; or

(b) It is not feasible to conduct independent peer review on all pivotal regulatory science used to justify regulatory decisions for reasons outlined in OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664), Section IX.

As the Agency’s request for public comment explained:

[C]oncerns about access to confidential or private information can, in many cases, be addressed through the application of solutions commonly in use across some parts of the Federal government. Nothing in the proposed rule compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections. Other federal agencies have developed tools and methods to de-identify private information for a variety of disciplines. The National Academies have noted that simple data masking, coding, and de-identification techniques have been developed over the last half century and that “Nothing in the past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach.”

The UCS letter asserted that concerns about transparency and certainty raised by supporters of the rule “are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political interference in science-based decision making, rather than genuinely address either.” But the irreproducibility crisis is real, not phony. Further, enhanced transparency works against politicization, not for it. This objection is so patently invalid as to suggest that those who offer it are themselves weaponizing confidentiality to facilitate their own political interference in science-based decision making.

A second common objection, raised in the same letter and again credible on first blush, is that “many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events (such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill).” But what need to be replicable in studies of such events are not the events themselves but the procedures used to collect and analyze data and make inferences from them.

Click here to sign the Open Letter.

Consider, for example, a study that used tree-rings as proxy temperature measurements and purported to find that neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age had occurred but that a rapid and historically unprecedented warming had begun in the late 19th century—a study that became iconic for claims of dangerous AGW driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. No one needed to use a time machine to return to the 11th through 20th centuries and regrow trees to recognize that the authors had committed confirmation fallacy by excluding certain data and misused a statistical procedure, resulting in false results. All anyone needed was access to the raw data and the computer code used to analyze it. Yet the study lead author’s long refusal to allow access to raw data and computer code delayed discovery of these errors for years, during which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the public, and governments all over the world were led to believe its claims and formulate expensive policies based partly on them.[v]

A few other objections have been raised against the proposed rule, and all are easily rebutted:

  • The EPA should be able to use all available scientific research, even if it is not transparent and replicable, and excluding some may cripple its ability to protect us. On the contrary, using scientific research that is non-transparent and non-replicable increases the likelihood that policy will be grounded on false information.
  • Some existing regulations are based on studies that could not have been used had this rule been in force, and implementing it could lead to rescinding those regulations and thus endangering the public. If enough of the research did satisfy the rule to justify the regulations, they need not be rescinded. If the regulations could not be justified by research that does satisfy the rule, then there is no reason to think the regulations actually protect the public, and they should be rescinded, eliminating their cost, which itself raises risks to the public.[vi]
  • Some studies rely on funding from sources that restrict disclosure of underlying data, and the rule would prohibit the EPA’s use of those. That is precisely why the rule is needed. The funders should change their policies; their refusal suggests they have something to hide.

In conclusion, the EPA’s proposed rule “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” banning the agency’s use of “secret science” in formulating regulations, survives objections. Its adoption and implementation will improve, not harm, the EPA’s mission to protect Americans from real environmental risks. It will also reduce the risks caused by unjustified but costly regulations.

Initial Expert Signers as of 5 p.m. Eastern Time, May 22, 2018:

(Institutional affiliation is for identification only.)

  1. Timothy Ball, Ph.D. (Historical Climatology), Climatologist (ret.), University of Winnipeg
  2. Glenn Barkley, Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry)
  3. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. (History), Founder & National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
  4. Edwin Berry, Ph.D. (Physics), CEO, Climate Physics LLC, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
  5. David Black, Ph.D. (Legal Medicine—Forensic Toxicology), Clinical Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University
  6. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. (International Relations/Environmental & Marine Pollution), Emeritus Reader, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Hull, UK, and Editor, Energy & Environment (ret.)
  7. James C. Bowers, Ph.D. (Engineering), Professor of Engineering, University of South Florida
  8. Roger Burtner, Ph.D. (Geology), Principal, Remote Sensing Exploration, Research Associate, Chevron Oil Field Research Company (ret.)
  9. Charles Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Physics), Chief, U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground (ret.), Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force Reserve Weather Officer (ret.), President, Biblical Framework Ministries, Adjunct Professor, Chafer Theological Seminary
  10. Patrick Coyne, Ph.D. (Agriculture), Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University
  11. Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. (Meteorology), Chief Climatologist/Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics
  12. John Droz, M.S. (Physics), Physicist, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
  13. John Dunn, M.D., J.D. (Medicine and Law), emergency medicine faculty physician, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
  14. James Enstrom, Ph.D. (Physics), Research Professor (ret.), University of California at Los Angeles
  15. Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Director National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), Chief Meteorologist, WHOU-TV (1987–2008) (ret.)
  16. Albrecht Glatzle, Dr.Sc. (Agriculture), Agro-biologist, Asociacion Rural del Paraguay
  17. William Green III, M.Div., Founder & CEO, CLIR (Confraternidad Latinoamericana de Iglesias Reformadas) Publishing
  18. Wayne A. Grudem, Ph.D., New Testament, Research Professor, Phoenix Seminary
  19. Gary Habermas, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy, Chair, Department of Philosophy, Liberty University
  20. William Happer, Ph.D. (Physics), Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University; Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, 1991–1993
  21. Barbara Hoshiko, Ph.D. (Nurse Education), Emeritus Professor of Nursing, Kent State University
  22. Vijay Jayaraj, M.Sc. (Environmental Science & Climate Change), Research Associate for Developing Countries, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
  23. Peter Jones, Ph.D. (New Testament), Executive Director, truthXchange, Emeritus Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary
  24. Bernard Kepshire Jr., Ph.D. (Fisheries Biology), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University (ret.)
  25. Henrik Krabbendam, Th.D. (Biblical Studies), Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies, Covenant College
  26. Edward Krug, Ph.D. (Soil Science), retired research scientist, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
  27. Tom Lehman, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of Economics, Indiana Wesleyan University
  28. Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (Groundwater Hydrology), Science Director, Heartland Institute, former Executive Director, National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers
  29. Philip Lestmann, Ph.D. (Mathematics), former Professor of Mathematics, Bryan College
  30. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  31. Anthony Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Science), Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
  32. George Mears, M.E. (Environmental Engineering), Hydrologist/Environmental Engineer
  33. Michael Oard, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), meteorologist, National Weather Service (ret.)
  34. William Moore, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC
  35. Philip Pennance, Ph.D. (Chemical Physics), Department of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico
  36. Chad Rodekohr, Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Associate Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College
  37. James Rust, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.), Georgia Institute of Technology
  38. Richard Sauer, M.S. (Environmental Engineering), owner, Sauer Engineering
  39. John Shanahan, Ph.D. (Engineering), President, Environmentalists for Nuclear – USA
  40. Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. (Physics), Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project
  41. David Shormann, Ph.D. (Aquatic Science), STEM educator, DIVE, LLC
  42. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite
  43. John Swayze, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry), organic/medicinal/agricultural chemist (ret.)
  44. Paul Taylor, M.S. (Environmental Sciences), Professor and Environmental Scientist, California State University, Northridge

Sign the letter now!

[emailpetition id=”4″]
[signaturelist id=”4″]

 

 

 

Endnotes

[i] Among discussions of it are John P.A. Ioannidis’s “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” (PLoS Med 2,8 (2005); Joseph P. Simmons et al., “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” Psychological Science 22,11 (2011), 1359–66; C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis, “Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research,” Nature 483 (2012), 531–33; and David Randall and Christopher Welser, The Irreproducibility Crisis in Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform (New York: National Association of Scholars, 2018). After nearly 40 years as a professor and researcher and over 30 years as a peer reviewer for over 30 professional journals, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, Robert Higgs wrote:

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. … Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world …. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.

[ii] The release, in 2009 and 2011, of thousands of emails exchanged by leading proponents of the view that AGW/ACC is historically unprecedented and probably of so great a magnitude as to justify actions costing trillions of dollars to mitigate it revealed widespread corruption of the peer review process to prevent the publication of high-quality papers that questioned that view or to ensure the publication of low-quality papers that affirmed it. Ivan Kenneally wrote in The New Atlantis of those emails:

These behind-the-scenes discussions among leading global-warming exponents are remarkable both in their candor and in their sheer contempt for scientific objectivity. There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity, and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement.

Such practices and others that feed a dubious perception of strong scientific consensus have been ably documented in numerous publications, including Ross McKitrick’s “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account,” A.W. Montford’s Hiding the Decline: A history of the Climategate affair, and David H. Douglass and John R. Christy’s “A Climatology Conspiracy?”

[iii] https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0039&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf, May 4, 2018.

[iv] https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/secret-science-letter-4-23-2018.pdf, April 23, 2018.

[v] See Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance,” Geophysical Research Letters 32,3 (12 February 2005), and other linked papers at https://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html.

[vi] Economists have estimated the relationship between a decline in national income and the loss of life that will result. One study indicates that a life is lost, on average, for an income decline of $10 million to $15 million. (Randall Lutter and John F. Morrall III, “Health-Health Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Health and Safety Regulation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8,1 (1994): 43–66.) Another approach indicates that it takes a $17 million income decline to result in one lost life. (Randall Lutter, John F. Morrall III, and W. Kip Viscusi, “The Cost-Per-Life-Saved Cutoff for Safety Enhancing Regulations,” Economic Inquiry 37,4 (1999): 599–608.) Still another study concluded that if regulatory costs are borne equally among the public, each $5 million in regulatory costs will induce one fatality, and if borne in proportion to income, each $11.5 million will do so. (Ralph L. Keeney, “Estimating Fatalities Induced by the Economic Costs of Regulations,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14 (1997): 5–23.) This means that some regulations may cost more lives through reduced income than they save by avoiding the risk against which they regulate.

Dated: May 18, 2018

Tagged With: Open Letter, Secret Science Reform Act
Filed Under: Bridging Humanity and the Environment, Climate & Energy, EPA & Other Federal Agencies, Global Warming Science, Landmark Documents, Politics & Law, Scientific Method

About E. Calvin Beisner

Dr. Beisner is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance; former Associate Professor of Historical Theology & Social Ethics, at Knox Theological Seminary, and of Interdisciplinary Studies, at Covenant College; and author of “Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate” and “Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future.”

Comments

  1. jack mc donough says

    May 21, 2018 at 2:56 pm

    Keep up the good work !

    Reply
  2. David L. Hagen says

    May 21, 2018 at 3:23 pm

    The EPA should uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity as detailed by Noble Laureate Richard Feynman in “Cargo Cult Science”, Commencement Address, Caltech 1974: “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. . . .We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science. . . .But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.” http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

    Reply
  3. Tim Ball says

    May 21, 2018 at 4:20 pm

    The Devils work is done in the darkness.

    Reply
  4. Bruce Vandenbos says

    May 21, 2018 at 4:54 pm

    Romans 1:18…

    Reply
  5. John Bontius says

    May 21, 2018 at 6:25 pm

    I always look for the truth
    that means anything that can be verified

    Reply
  6. Dennis Perry says

    May 21, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    Truth, by definition, is observable and available to everyone. God even challenges us to believe in spirit and in truth as well as to “test the spirit to know the truth”. It is never unavailable or accessible to an elite few. Those who believe such nonsense are guilty of deception, which is the antithesis of truth.

    Reply
  7. David Evans says

    May 21, 2018 at 9:02 pm

    It is time for EPA to stop acting as if it were the Roman Inquisition of Galileo. The risk of combining religion and government is not that religion will corrupt government, but that government corrupts religion. Now the interference of government in science has certainly corrupted science, and in the case of ecological science, has helped turn it into a corrupt religion.

    Reply
  8. Tim Chapin says

    May 22, 2018 at 2:41 pm

    Ironically I also received a post by the American Lung association promoting the opposite approach, that is why I no longer support the American Lung Assoc.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Listen To Our Podcast


Available to listen on these platforms:

Spotify
Amazon Music
Apple Podcast
Google Podcast
Stitcher

Future Speaking Engagements

May 23, 2025 – Grand Rapids, MI

GR.Church, 4525 Stauffer Avenue Southeast, Grand Rapids, MI 49508

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance President, and Steve Goreham, Cornwall Alliance Board Member, will hold a symposium on Sustainable Energy, Climate Change, and the costs to YOUR life.  For tickets and more information, click HERE.

June 18-21, 2025–Dallas, TX

Cornwall Alliance will be a host of the Association of Classical Christian Schools’ (ACCS) annual Repairing the Ruins conference in Dallas, TX, and will have an exhibit booth.

Details and registration can be found HERE.

September 19-20–Arlington, VA

Dr Beisner will represent the Cornwall Alliance at the fall meeting of the Philadelphia Society and will have a literature table.

Attendance is for Society members and invited guests only. To inquire about an invitation, email Dr. Cal Beisner: Calvin@cornwallalliance.org.

September 26-27– Lynchburg, VA

Dr. Beisner will be speaking at the Christian Education Initiative Annual Summit, “Advancing Christ’s Kingdom Through Biblical Worldview Education.” 

Details and registration can be found HERE.

Are Science & Religion in Conflict?

Join Our Email List

Select list(s) to subscribe to


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Recent Stewards Blog Posts

  • Traditional Media Turn Complex Science Into Impending Catastrophe
  • Why the Environmental Movement (Deep Ecology) and Socialism Are No Substitute for the Great Commission
  • Trump’s Example to the World: Cull Activists to Achieve Energy Abundance
  • Shapiro ‘Price Cap’ Could Hike Electricity Bills
  • Next Year, Let’s Have People Day, Not Earth Day

Top 40 Global Warming Blog by Feedspot

Search

Listen to Our Podcast

Available to listen on these platforms:

Spotify
Amazon Music
Apple Podcast
Google Podcast
Stitcher



Copyright © 2025 · Cornwall Alliance · 875 W. Poplar Avenue Suite 23-284, Collierville, TN 38017 · Phone: (423) 500-3009

Designed by Ingenious Geeks & John A. Peck · Log in