8-21-25 - 8am - The Scam That is Air Care Colorado

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Mike, how come the newscasters always say, oh, with record
heat today, it's going to be ninety seven.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
The record is ninety nine. That's not record heat. No, Now, Dragon,
I have a real bugaboo about this.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
She did say, though, near near.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Record heat, near record heat.

Speaker 3 (00:19):
Now, what I find is three degrees really near record breaks.
So if we're ninety seven today and the record is
ninety nine, so that's ninety eight ninety nine, so we
have to go over three degrees, is that really near
record breaking? I'd say if we were tying the record,
that would be near record breaking heat.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
And if you listen to the entirety of the forecast,
oftentimes Dave Fraser will say it's near record breaking. I
don't think we're going to reach that, so he'll put
a qualifier on it. Now, do you think we'll hear
the same thing. This is true anywhere across the country.

(01:00):
Now Tomorrow, I don't know about where you live. But
next week, I don't know when, Starting maybe Saturday or Sunday,
we're entering into another monsoon time, and the temperatures next
week are going to start out in the mid eighties,
I believe, and drop all the way down to the
mid seventies, do you think we'll still hear like, let's

(01:23):
just say that Monday. I'm just pulling the numbers out
of my button. Let's say Monday that the forecast temperature
is supposed to be eighty eight degrees. Do you think
that if we were to reach or they were to predict,
change their prediction from and it does turn out to

(01:45):
be eighty degrees, but they forecast there's going to be
ninety two degrees, do you think they would be talking
about near record breaking temperatures.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:55):
No, because eighty degrees in the summertime and color rhtto
is yeah, okay, summertimes.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
August. Has it been hot? Yes?

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Has it been extraordinarily hot? No, it's been hot.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
It's August.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
We're in kind of a drought and it's been not
you know, every I think of all the thunderstorm they
scattered thunderstorms. I think I got one of them in
my house. It's fear everywhere. And that's relevant to this
whole thing about air quality.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
At what point is clean clean enough?

Speaker 1 (02:38):
Because, as I said before the break, the AI chat
bot said that your critique is well founded. A meaningful
cost benefit of analysis for public policy requires quantitative color
and a specific evidence, not vague or nationalized estimate. So
what did I do? I go back in. I still

(02:58):
have the PDF of all the other data in the
same chat. So I ask then re review all of
those documents, then find related documents that are as you say, quantitative,
that are some that are Colorado specific if you have those,

(03:22):
but don't give me vaguer nationalized estimates. Here's the response.
Here's the most concrete, evidence based quantification currently available for
Colorado and similar US airsheds. We'll break down the numbers
using published peer reviewed models Colorado Department of Public Health

(03:43):
and Environment Analysis and EPA reviewed costs benefit frameworks. Okay,
so you're telling me in part you're going to go
back and use the same data that I've already uploaded.
That's not what I want, because you've already admitted that, Yeah,
that's not quantitative and it's not a true cost benefit analysis.

(04:06):
I then get this from NIH The EPA and the
CBC have modeled modeled, again not proven. They've modeled that
reducing ozone by ten parts per billion, which would be
about a ten to fifteen percent drop in summer levels,

(04:28):
which is close to based on my calculations would be
close to the seven to seven and a half reduction
in precursors to ozone that would prevent between one and
two prematured deaths per one million people per year. Now,

(04:53):
if it's your life, I know you think it's worth
eighty million dollars to save your life. If it's my life, yes,
I think my life is worth even at my age.
I'm sure some actuaries would disagree with him. But based
upon my assets, my net worth, my income, everything, I

(05:16):
think that my if you know, if I hire a
capitalists because I get killed in an accident. If I
get killed an accident, obviously I won't hire capitalists, but
if my family were, I would bet he could come
up with some estimates that the value of that life is.
You know, maybe it exceeds eighty million dollars. But the

(05:39):
point is we're spending eighty million dollars seventy six point
five million dollars per year based on a model that
says it might prevent one to two premature deaths per
one million people.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
The NIH also goes on to.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
Say that Colorado's program might prevent again, might prevent Can
you imagine walking into a courtroom. I mean, maybe you can,
but I can't. I can't imagine walking into a courtroom
and saying, you know, we ran a model that says
that you know, this might prevent two to four between
two and four respiratory hospitalizations per one hundred thousand people

(06:21):
per year.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
This is really starting to feel like the old game
show whose line is in Anyway where everything is made
up and the points don't matter bingo.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
It is almost exactly like that deaths avoid.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
If you look at the Colorado Urban Corridor, we have
about four million people in this corridor. Deaths avoided per
year might be between four and eight and hospitalizations. Based
on that calculation, that model from NIH means that it
might we might avoid somewhere between eighty and one hundred

(07:02):
and sixty hospitalizations out of approximately four million people. So
we're spending eighty million dollars to maybe avoid four to
eight deaths and eighty two one hundred and sixty hospitalizations.
So I ask you, is that worth it? The best

(07:24):
part of all of this analysis has to do with
when you start asking and researching as to why we
have this emissions program.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Do you know why we have it?

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Because the Clean Air Act enacted by Congress, the rules
of which were enacted by unelected bureaucrats decided that, based
on their modeling, we ought to try to reduce ozone
by a certain percent, and if you fail to do that,
then we're going to sanction your state by doing things

(08:02):
like withholding you know, highway funds or withholding healthcare funds
or so.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
So we're being we're being ransomed.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
We're being.

Speaker 2 (08:12):
Not ransom.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
I saw the word. We're being extorted. We're being extorted
to comply with a federal law that is based on
a model that may or may not save some lives.
That is no way to make public policy. It's a again,

(08:33):
it's going back to the to the concept that it's
feel good the again, go back to the cost. Cost
is seventy five point six million. I'm calling it eighty
million dollars because you know, you know, for example, go
back to Illinois for a moment. So Illinois is all,

(08:55):
you know, because there are all a bunch of you know,
Marxists in Illinois, just like they are in Colorado, and
they're really happy because they love their emissions program even
though ninety cars pass it, Which helps me validate that
we're more strict than other states because we have a
nine percent failure rate. They have a one percent failure rate.

(09:18):
Now imagine that their argument for their program is, we're
going to make it more convenient because we're going to
put up some mobile units at the DMV on the
south side of Chicago. On the south side of Chicago,
how many how many vehicles do you think are going
to fail? Now, some areas on the south side south

(09:42):
doend know how you define south side of Chicago, But
south side of Chicago includes some areas like the McCormick Center,
includes some areas like Wrigley Field at University of Chicago.
It's it's a very high end area. Now you get
a little further south of that, you can almost almost
by street, go from the high end area to the

(10:04):
really poor end area. And depending on where that mobile
units located, if it's in the really poor area, you
might get a higher rate of failure and therefore be
able to claim in Illinois, oh look, we're saving the planet.
We're saving you know, live blah blah blah, what bull crap.
And just because you make it more convenient, that's a justification. No,

(10:25):
that's not a justification. You are they're using modeling as justifications,
So I wanted specific justifications, and I wanted specific numbers
based on real world analysis and not on models.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
If you go.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Looking for real world measured data that directly links the
Colorado air Care programs exact seven to seven point five
seven to seven point five percent SOO zone precursor reduction
to exact avoided premature deaths or avoided hospitalizations or economic challenges,

(11:06):
good luck, because you're not going to find it. If
you find it, put it in a PDF and email
it to Michael Brown at iHeartMedia dot com. This is
why regulatory and public health agencies rely so heavily on
modeling analyzes, which takes just aggregate broad data sets and

(11:31):
some real real world, real world monitoring thrown in, and
from that they produce what they claim to be evidence based,
quantitative and estimates. If you want direct real world outcomes
for a program of like Colorado air Care, you need

(11:52):
decades years of data showing direct causal links between watch
you have done and lives saved or hospitalizations presented. They
do not. Now they don't get me wrong. Cover out
AirCare program. There is extensive emissions data and vehicle compliance reports.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
But if you're looking for long.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Term healthcome healthcare outcome studies that specifically isolate aircre's impact
with precise health event counts, it's not been published anywhere.
You can't find it anywhere. So the health benefits such
as these claimed reduced premature deaths, reduced hospitalizations that can

(12:44):
only manifest itself in real world data over years of
statistical analysis of analyzing real world data. And we don't
do that. We just don't do it. Do you know
what we do get We cover the test results and
the failure rates. We do study regional air quality monitoring,

(13:07):
so we can see a trend in ozone precursor levels,
and we can know the program costs and the compliance rates.
But health outcome data is assessed at a population level
in surveillance studies, but you can't link those data points
directly and exclusively to air care interventions with exact avoided

(13:28):
deaths or hospitalizations that are quantified in any sort of
any short term empirical study. It's just not published. Then
I finally get to the point where I'm so frustrated
by this. I take all of the data, everything, I

(13:48):
started an entirely new chat with a new different AI chatbot.
Here's the summary. I get the absence of direct empirical
health outcome studies specifically validatingalidating Colorado air Care programs isolate isolated.

Speaker 2 (14:05):
This is their language, not mine.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
The absence of direct empirical health outcome studies specifically validating
the air care program's isolated impact on lives saved and
injuries prevented is a known gap, but it is also
a common limitation across all vehicle emissions testing programs all
across the United States. Therefore, the best available approach remains modeling,

(14:29):
combining real emissions data and verified epidemiological relationships. If you
want to responsibly estimate program benefits, if your priority is
strictly observational, strictly empirical short term health outcome data directly
correlating with this program alone. It does not currently exist

(14:51):
in the public domain or in state or federal documentation,
and that they say is consistent with national and vice
health policy practices due to the complexity and scale of
air pollution impacts.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
In other words, there is no real world.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
Data showing a beneficial cost benefit analysis of healthcare benefits
as a redrect result of the emissions testing program in Colorado.
So I took that phrase and in my conversation with
the AI chat bot plug that in and the answer

(15:31):
was yes, that is correct. There is currently no direct,
real world empirical data specifically demonstrating a beneficial cost benefit
analysis of healthcare outcomes attributable to Colorado's vehicle emissions testing program.
This is what is you've misbi referred to as a circle,

(15:54):
you know, a or a cluster that either one Congress
and actual law bureaucrats make regulations. They say, if you
don't comply with the regulations, we're going to find you.
So they implement a program that costs taxpayers eighty million
dollars a year without any consideration to whether or not
there's actually a benefit.

Speaker 2 (16:14):
To the program.

Speaker 1 (16:15):
This is public policy made on feel good, on feelings,
on feelings, and then when you you know, decades later,
go in, when you think there would be a mountain
of evidence about how good this program's been, you can't
find it. It doesn't exist. Why we accept this shows

(16:42):
exactly why I mean, we bitch and moan about stuff,
but why does it continue to occur? Because we don't
elect people to go to the politbureau or to go
to Congress that do the kind of analysis that I
spend an afternoon doing, which is what they get paid
to do, and which they have staff to do, and

(17:04):
which could come up with a conclusion that says, wait
a minute, we are this is what dose should be doing,
and we should have a doze in this state that
would analyze something like this. I'm a one man doze
for this air care quality program only.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
Because I saw something on X.

Speaker 1 (17:20):
Otherwise I never think about it, because I never go
to a testing station because my cars are new enough
that I you know, they're they're exempt right now.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
But all the rest of us.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Paying for the program eighty million dollars for what.

Speaker 3 (17:36):
What, Michael, I ain't hoped today is the lanstay in
the high nineties, because I'm ready for the weather to
get as cold as your heart.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
Cold hearted, huh uh.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
I wanted to move on from the whole emissions thing,
but it's obviously touched the nerve. So I want to
share some text messages with you, and speaking of cold hearted,
in response to that, I would read you the text
from Goober fifty eight to eleven. Michael, my life may

(18:13):
or may not be worth one million dollars to me.
But it is not on balance worth demanding one million
dollars from someone who isn't me in the context of
the emissions program. That is spot on. Now, if that
other person caused you to die or permanent injuries, or

(18:35):
turns you into a paraplegic, then yes, you know, demanding
one million dollars in somebody else may actually be worth demanding.
But those are different circumstances. Here we we everyone who
owns a car, that has a registered car in Colorado,
which maybe is becoming few and fewer people, is required

(18:58):
to go do this or be in the exempt category.
So we are all paying for this. Have you thought
about why the program continues? Because this is when this
was originally set up, a bid was put out. I

(19:20):
can't say yes or no that the lowest bidder got
the contract. What I can probably assure you is that
somebody's friend got the contract. And now, like any other
government program, it has become just a permanent fixture, and
there is zero incentive for polists to go to the legislature,

(19:41):
to the public Bureau and ask to hey, let's curtail
this program. Let alone, let's eliminate this program. Many states
don't have it we're always going to have because of
our topography, our altitude, our geography, because of the way

(20:02):
the placement of the urban areas up against the rocky mountains,
We're always going to have ozone issues. I don't care
what we do, and we can't quantify the benefit. Then
you have Congress enacting the Clean Air Act, a bunch
of unelected bureaucrats imposing the regulations and then extorting states
that you must comply with that. And in fact, not

(20:23):
only do we extorre we allow the federal government to
extort us, and then we impose our own extortion by saying, hey,
we're going to adopt the same standards for emissions as California.
So now we are being extorted by the California General Assembly.
It's insane what we do, and yet we just go along.

(20:48):
This one from fifty five to ninety really stabbed me
in the heart, because this is a real bugaboo with me, Michael.
With all the revenue for AirCare Colorado that generates, one
would think that Sea Dot would invest in street sweepers
and sweep the interstates.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
This is so true.

Speaker 1 (21:08):
One of the air quality factors is the amount of
particulates in our air. Sweep the effing streets and there
will be less particular particulates in the air, reducing the
brown cloud and improving quality. But no, that wouldn't fit
their narrative to have high density stalinistic housing, broken trolleys,

(21:29):
and slush fund for the cabals croning nonprofits. Wow, you
fit a hell of a lot in one text message.
You touched on almost all of my bugaboos. I noticed
the streets just the other day, coming down to twenty five,
even extending into can I be snobbish for a minute,

(21:52):
even extending into the Denver Tech Center, you know the
high end part. No, No, I twenty five down, it's
not quite as bad, but you can tell it hasn't
been swept and cleaned. I would truly, particularly if you
know the geep. I mean, I don't want you. I
don't want anybody's car to be damaged. But I'd be

(22:14):
particularly pissed off if I was driving down I twenty
five and somebody swerved toward me and I had to
swerve to my left and get into that middle median
because there are there there are rims, there's trash, there's
glass bottles, junk. I mean I'm surprised I haven't seen

(22:35):
hopeless people meal that that'll be the next thing. Well,
I have a homeless encampment along the I twenty five median.
That'll be the next thing going on. Then thirteen ninety
four points out again, Michael Michael smartass ninety percent plus
ozone resides at fifty thousand feet altitude, trace amounts that

(22:57):
surface level. A seven percent rise in surface levels isn't
even measurable. I don't know that to be completely factually true,
but I take it at its face value because I
read something similar in the documents from CDPH about their measurements,

(23:18):
because they don't even have confidence in their own measurements.
Think about that, you know, just I think it was yesterday.
The overhead signs drive less, combined trips, don't mow or whatever.
Ozone alert day, Well, you know, bulk as you're reading

(23:39):
the signs, I'd like to know how many people read
I truly would. I'd like to know what do you
think the percentage is of one percent that read those
signs and go, oh, I gotta go home. Park the
car is an ozone day? Seventy four to thirty one
Michael clean Air Clean will never be clean enough. Liberals

(24:01):
occupy a theoretical, idealistic high ground where their standards can
never be reached. Practicality is not a consideration for the liberal.
Perfect is the enemy of good. I discovered that in
DC when we were all worried about a dirty bomb
Post nine to eleven. I asked the EPA, and I

(24:22):
asked Tommy Thompson Healthy Human Services.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
How clean is clean?

Speaker 1 (24:27):
Because you're telling me that you know X amount of
radiation is acceptable and that people can survive that. Yet
you're telling us, on the other hand, that we can't
allow people to move back into whatever that zone might
be that the dirty bomb affects. You're saying that, even
though it's at an acceptable level, you still recommend that

(24:48):
we not allow people to move back into it. So
when and a what level is clean enough? I wonder
why they hated me in DC. I wonder why I
was I became a scapegoat. I think that's exactly why,
because nobody.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
Would ask those damn questions.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
Nobody would ask those questions. Uh, forty four to sixty seven, Michael,
I just had my nineteen eighty five. Let's see, No,
I did not fall I was just pounding on the
no don't call nine one one no no, no, no, no,
no no, can't pound my Apple watch on night see.

(25:31):
So fifteen forty years forty year old car. Damn, I'm impressed.
I just had my nineteen eighty five Nissan tested, and
the guy at Ericare, Colorado said, they make the test
so easy they rarely fail anyone. I actually don't believe
the nine percent failure figure. I'm sure that's what they put.

Speaker 3 (25:53):
Out, especially for something simple like gas caps and things
like that, So that's why they get failed. So you
have to go buy a new gas cap and boom, nag,
you're good. So that's probably part of the failure.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Right absolutely. And I think they probably want to keep
that failure rate at a somewhere around ten percent, because
then you can justify continuing the program. If the failure
rate was, say zero point one percent, how could you
possibly justify continuing the program.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
I've seen some of those numbers.

Speaker 3 (26:20):
I'm pulling these out of my butt, But the last
time I went through mine like the fail where the
fail number was like nine nine point oh and my car,
which is a ninety no seven, was like a point
oh six. I was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait
what And then I'm again I'm fudging the numbers a

(26:43):
little bit, but I'm pretty sure the failure number was
nine point oh yeah. And my car, which is, you know,
seventeen years old, did a point oh six.

Speaker 2 (26:53):
Okay, so you got long ways to go, so that
car is worth another fifty years.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
Of drive, you better believe it. Yeah, just has my
new tires, you know. Good grief. Eighty one oh five, Mike.
The last time the comedians referring to the politicians, the
last time the comedians were cleaned in downtown Denver was
when the Denver Police Force was complaining about all the

(27:17):
trash in the middle when they have their motorcycle patrols
out there for vascular or whatever. I don't know, And
of course yes, eighty eight seventy seven.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Then I'll move on.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
I have no evidence of this, but based on the
way politicians operate, we have the current AirCare Colorado system.
Based on the past history of how politicians operate, the
bid was awarded to the company that was connected to
the politicians that set up the AirCare Colorado. It would
not surprise me if there were Nancy Pelosi and had
stock in the company that was given the contract for
what became AirCare Colorado. Another great example of this is

(27:54):
my opinion in the new airport. It was located down
in the booties, but somehow May Opinion's friends just happened
to own the property where Pinyon Boulevard was built. Most
roads go straight north and south or east and west,
but not Benya. It curves a bunch of different directions,
so they make sure the property had to be bought
from the mayor's friends who just happened to have bought
property in the perfect place where the airport was going

(28:14):
to be located and Penya Boulevard was built. I remember
the Denver post. Actually, yeah, I remember that too. Have
you ever wondered why we just don't go out I
seventy east a little further and then just turn and
go straight north to the airport. Have you ever wondered
why we make that turn where we make the turn
and then kind of meander around to the airport?

Speaker 2 (28:36):
Mm hmm you ever thought about that?

Speaker 1 (28:39):
Yeah? Exactly? Why zero nine, three eight and then I'll
move on before dragon yells at me. I particularly liked
it a couple of years ago when my old fine
Mustang GT.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Easily passed.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
This is your Dragon easily passed the emissions limits, except
for them fingerprinting the tune that I have had on
there since right after I bought the call are the
tune wasn't carb approof California Air Resources Board, and COTERRA
has seated some of their emission standards to California your honor,
I arrest my case.

Speaker 4 (29:11):
Michael, Hey, if I heart saw that, uh, liberal left
leaning garbage garbage garbage stuff, why the hell are we
listening to you at supporting iHeart? Ah, the head scratchers.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
Have a great day.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
You you support me because you love me. You you
respect my critical thinking skills, You respect my humor, you
enjoy my humor.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
You like Dragon. You keep me and Dragon off the streets,
do you? You're the bonus that that's the bad part
right there.

Speaker 1 (29:47):
Right there, that's the you keep us off the streets
because without this Dragon and I have zero marketable skills,
we have no talent, we have no ability to do anything.
This is the only place that we can do anything,
even attempting, attempting to be halfway good from mankind. We're

(30:10):
just worthless pieces of you know what. And so that's
why iHeart hired us.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
Yeah, just go back to that first segment we did
this morning.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
And I would also like to say if all that
was false, then I would not still be talking about
air Care Colorado because, holy crap, the text messages are
out of control.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
Y'all are as pissed as we are.

Speaker 1 (30:44):
Yes, twelve forty seven sums up what Dragon said. My
husband is a total gear hit gearhead. It's his hobby
and he studies the results parentheses. He likes to read
that kind of stuff for fun, close print. He's my
kind of guy. From all of our vehicles. It drives
him up the wall to see what ours are testing

(31:07):
at and the levels that AirCare Colorado say are passing
or accepted a waste of money every time we have
to do emissions. But you're supporting that contractor you're supporting
the people that are employed by AirCare Colorado. You're paying
a fee which is really attacks. You're paying for something

(31:30):
that it might It might save one life, it might
prevent one hospitalization, it might present it might prevent one
person from having an asthma attack. So you twelve forty
seven are You're the evil person, not me and Dragon,
You are waste of time and money every time we

(31:53):
have to do emissions. I'm gonna take you show you
some I'm gonna be like Hamas. I'm gonna take you
to hospital and show you a kid.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
That has.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
A broken leg and say, see to see what See
what the ozone did to this kid?

Speaker 2 (32:10):
It broke his leg. Yeah, then you'll feel guilty. And
then I'll start a fund. I'll start an n g
O and then you'll contribute to it. And then you
want

Speaker 1 (32:20):
Me to go away, contribute to my gofund Dragon, I
will both go away.