Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan’s claims of 50% reduction in nitrogen dioxide were based on modelled data not facts – why not produce evidence from 50 streets in the expanded ULEZ before and after?

From here:

Ulez benefits touted by Sadiq Khan were 'misleading' claims bombshell report (msn.com)

Ok, it is a leaked report and not finalized, but likely to be published in a few weeks.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints and will accuse Transport for London of not being “legal, decent, honest and truthful”.

The upheld complaint is that the claim that the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) had reduced Nitrogen Dioxide l(NO2) levels by half, when no such data was available. It was “modelled”.

It seems to me that all that needed to be done to calculate any effect was to measure NO2 levels in, say 50 streets newly captured by the ULEZ expansion – NO2 before, NO2 six months later.

What is even more galling is that 9 million pounds was spend perpetuating the lie.

“The ASA’s investigation, it found two adverts were “misleading” because they “did not clarify” claims NO2 levels had “reduced by nearly half” as a result of Ulez, and were based on “estimates or modelled scenarios” and not “actual figures”.

“Although evidence gathered from actual data indicated that there had been a reduction in NO2 levels since the implementation of the Ulez, it did not show that actual NO2 levels had reduced by almost half.“

It all sounds so familiar, right? Models are created that produce a desired outcome and which have no basis in reality.

Of course, Transport for London (TfL) is eager to educate the ASA as to why facts don’t matter and its models are far superior.

“Scientific analysis based on modelled scenarios and estimates is standard practice in the scientific community. We are meeting with the ASA to take them through the data and explain in detail how it is used.“

Such a laughable premise. When TfL cites “scientific community” it means a bunch of sycophants it pays to produce a desired result. Just like Neil Ferguson of Imperial College when he “hoaxed” the outcomes of the C19 scamdemic. If I have a dollar for every “model” I have seen that claims to have the Holy Grail for “beating the market” I would have a few thousands bucks.

This is the same issue that permeates all climate modelling. It is not science, it is not evidence, it is fake and manipulated for political purposes.

Onwards!

Please subscribe or make a donation via Ko-fi – any amount from 3 bucks upwards. Don’t worry and God Bless, if you can’t or don’t want to. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 Ko-fi donation a week!