UPDATE: 6/30/2009
The EPA suppressed a 98 page report that may have been critical of whether or not carbon dioxide is a major factor in global warming. That’s good to know a couple days after the House passed the Cap and Trade bill, might have been important information to know before voting on the legislation. It doesn’t really matter, legislators don’t read bills or memos concerning bills anyway.
EPA Report Suppressed
Alan Carlin of the EPA, the author of the 98 page report said this to of all places CBS News:
“It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”
Carlin was speaking of his boss, Al McGartland who told Carlin by email that the administration and the administrator have decided to move forward and that his [Carlin] comments didn’t help the legal or policy case for their decision to move forward.
Carlin was told by email that he was to have no direct contact with anyone outside a small group at EPA on the topic of climate change; he was also told that his report would not be shared with anyone else in the group working on climate change.
Alan Carlin said that the research that the EPA was relying on was at least three years out of date, and didn’t reflect the current data. Since when did liberals ever let facts get in the way of anything? It’s obvious the EPA suppressed this report because of pressure from the Obama administration and democrats on Capitol Hill. From the CBS report:
Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.
The EPA sent an email communication to CBS stating that Carlin was not a scientist and that his accusations about being cut out of the process were not true. The EPA said:
“The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”
McGartland sent an email in March which is seemingly opposite of that statement. He said:
“I decided not to forward your comments… I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” He also wrote to Carlin: “Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.”
This stinks to high Heaven, and you can bet that we haven’t heard the last of this story. Republicans did try to raise some questions about these emails and this report before the House passed Cap and Trade. Hopefully more will be made known before the Senate gets their greasy hands on the bill.
You can be sure that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their hands all over the EPA suppressing this report.
UPDATE:6/30/2009 Michelle Malkin has a nice little post on her blog about this with a video of Alan Carlin on Fox and Friends.
EPA Report Suppression Video
June 28th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I don’t know when exactly it started, but clearly in the Bush Administration the EPA became a mere political tool for corporate interests. It lost its balance. The people that were appointed and the ones that were hired were basically hired guns to prepare reports on issues that favored the industries they were “suppose” to regulate. The scientific integrity of the agency became so impaired that at this point I think the agency needs a careful looking at. Perhaps, in some ways like the Federal Reserve the EPA’s research arm should be given autonomy from the various political people appointed from each administration. No doubt the report you mention was a product of biased politics under the Bush administration, and naturally team obama would not want to release that as it would be so counterproductive to their policy goals. Clearly, carbon dioxide emissions as they line the atmospheric canopy trap heat energy reflecting and radiating it back on the globe and its oceans and its been researched and proven in series scientific studies. To try and make it a big obama conspiracy when in fact it was the bad hack research during the prior administration is so disingenuouus. That is like letting a vitamin company write its own fda approval of its product as a working pharmaceutical with no real honest oversight by the government. I would expect obama to clean up the misscience in the EPA laying around and make it a more reputable scientific outfit which it had been in the past. That is called good governance. If you look it up you will see the bush administration played a lot of mischief with the EPA.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Let us say that you are right. There is no global warming. Carbon dioxide is having no impact upon the environment of the Earth. The ice is not melting. Any variations are the consequence of the sun. So…what do you suggest we do? Should we continue to dig up as much coal as we can and burn it up, continue to burn up as much oil as we can? Just let things go the way they are now? What do you suggest we do? Nothing? I would like to know. You say there is no problem. So it must follow that, if there is no problem, your suggestion must be to do nothing. If there is no problem, then why try to take any action at all, correct? Therefore, we should go on just the way we are. Burn coal, burn oil, refine and burn as much gasoline as we can or as we please, and forget about anything else, correct?
I just want to hear you say it, and then see how many people agree with you.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Well Klo, I do think it’s rather ridiculous to think that oil and coal, will destroy the planet.
They are after all made by the planet, not by man.
Regardless, there are a lot of people who do take personal responsibility by recycling and other conservation type things. Even me, as a crazy right winger recycles.
It is just ridiculous for the government to try and regulate something they really have no control over, something they can’t stop if they really wanted to. Climate Change. It’s just a tax increase, more control over you and me.
Climate Change is natural, period.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Clearly, they withheld a report that would hurt Obama’s cause. That is dishonest and corrupt. So much for transparency.
The Obama administration is in a HUGE hurry to cram this though due to the political timing. To get something passed whether it is right or not. Witness the 300 pages added at 3:00 in the morning. Nice job Waxman.
Why not go with a less radical approach instead of the over-the-top Cap & Tax bill they are pushing. It won’t get through the Senate anyway, so hopefully they will try a less radical approach next time.
America deserves better than this. Those in the Obama administration, and this Congress, should be ashamed of themselves.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Should we do “nothing”… this is honestly a tough one my friend. But I would have to argue “no way”.
It is true that inaction can be as bad as incorrect action, IMO. However, it is irresponsible to act in opposition to the facts. We have to do our best to fully understand the actions we take, and even then we can still be wrong. It is entirely possible that whatever roads we take to try to amend the climate now, believing we are doing the right thing, could result in harmful consequences we never understood. Most of the “damage” we already have done, if any at all, is due to our own lack of understanding. Likewise, it is possible that we may undertake something we believe is “safe” but is far more harmful. It is scary actually. But most scary of all is the idea that ANY political agenda should push forward action prematurely in contradiction to what our scientist are coming to believe. There is yet some debate in scientific circles. I wish there wasn’t. But there are. So, no, doing nothing is far from the point of the article. We can choose to do some things that seem to make sense, and continue to study and seek to understand. As soon as we discover we are “wrong” about something we can always change our course. Well, assuming we are a sensible race. I guess that is maybe asking too much.
We can improve the air around our cities. It is clearly not natural for us to breathe it. Whether or not it will “kill the planet” is almost beside the point. We can learn to recycle our resources — there is no reason to dig stuff up, use it once, then bury it again. That seems just economically stupid to me, surely we can do better. We can learn to decentralize some of our infrastructure, increasing the strength of our economy and our culture as a whole. Do nothing? Hardly. The only thing we should NOT do is suppress viewpoints. If anyone argument is truly so off-base it would come to light anyway.
The bigger risk than having bad information get out, is that the decision makers are not competent to know what to do with it, good or bad, and maybe don’t care so much anyway. This is the real problem and I think what the article here is really calling into question. Let’s hurry and get this problem solved so we can go to lunch ok? lol
June 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am
You actualy think that if we stop using cole we will stop digging it up? We will still dig it up and sell it to China. Same thing if we stop using oil. China will continue use it. There is no reason I should have to pay out of my ass to use a cheap resorce to pay for the government to make “Clean” energy. It can wait 20 or 30 years until new energies are researched with out my money. There are plenty of hippie college students and MIT grads out there that are more than happy to research this.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am
No one is suggesting that we do nothing because of this cover-up. It is obvious we need to become more energy independent and we need to keep our world as clean as possible, but we don’t need to bankrupt the country to do it, the Government is in charge of that. We need a united front on all types of energy and yes this includes nuclear power. Clean coal technology,solar,wind, hydrogen and geothermal just to name a few of the more commonly known. No one of these listed can do it on their own. It will take a combination of all of them to pull this off. We need to do something, but anything we do should not be based of false science.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
As I see it, the issue here isn’t what direction we should ultimately take regarding climate change. The issue is disregarding at best — and concealing at worst — relevant, updated research concerning the core assumptions underlying the proposed legislation.
It’s pretty simple: if climate change is such an emergency, the facts will easily support it — those looking to pass this legislation would be advertising recent studies, not concealing them. When they resort to controlling the flow of information, you need to wonder whether the ultimate goal is saving the planet or taking that next step up the career ladder.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am
We need to stop and go back to square one. This has all been blown out of proportion all on the premise that man made global warming is threat of nuclear proportions.
The debate is not over. Yet we still see everything moving forward as if it is. Its a simple ploy for those like GE to make money, environmentalists to create a eutopic in lockstep society, and for government to have a tool that works as a platform for the trade of power and money.
Its all bullsh*t.
Our air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, recycling only makes sense when the market can use the by products.
Instead of being directed by the simple desire for a cleaner well maintained planet we are being driven by a bunch of fear mongering corporate and government beaurocrats who insist the sky is falling regardless of the science that says otherwise.
Monopolization of a basic necessity such as energy has always led to nothing but disaster at the cost of quick return financial investments.
The French with nuclear energy attempted the same monopolization via means of conservation and supposed care for the environment only to see hundreds of its seniors die from heat strokes and exaustion simply because electricty was foregone due to the cost. It created the “haves” and the “have nots”.
In the present economy with costs going up everywhere, wages stagnating, jobs going away, we will see the same thing happening here.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
This is nothing more than a tax grab, period end of story.
If they really want to reduce GLOBAL co2 then all countries have to do the same thing not just some. IF the environmental extremists want to really regulate ALL co2 then all of the following sources have to be address;
oil
gas
coal
trees(yes trees give off some c02)
animals(ALL Mammals)
swamps
volcano’s(this one I’d like to see what they suggest since volcano’s put more co2 into the atmosphere than we as humans from all sources do)
Human’s( population control and activity control since we all exhale co2)
So if we do not control ALL of the above exactly how is it we are going to control co2 on a global scale??? We can’t, it is beyond our comprehension what the cycles and naturally occuring elements that created life on this planet do to the planet. Let’s worry about the actual polutants we dump into the air, rivers and oceans instead of trying to control what humans can eat and think and taxing them out existance.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, PERIOD.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Klo your argument is old and we are all aware of the liberal playbook you stole it from. The answer to everything is not “well, we gotta do something” and then rush legislation through as fast as you can in the middle of the night (or on a Friday nonetheless). Anyone with any common sense would realize that we need to research things before we just implement them. The same champion of this legislation to save the World, has a monthly electric bill 3xs the average annual bill in Tennessee and flies around in the least fuel efficient private jet in its class. I also noticed that he hasn’t painted his roof white yet either.
The suppression of any information by the EPA should be labeled as a criminal act. All the facts should have been put on the table. Congress should have time to read the bill. We should all have a chance to know what it is. And what it is…a massive tax on whatever the government deems it needs to tax. This isn’t about saving the planet. It is about the government taking control of yet, another aspect of our lives.
If you think for one second that every business that sees an increase in taxes from carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to pass that increase onto consumers…you are sadly misguided. Just read your utility bill and you will see that.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
we need to research things before we just implement them
Yeah dailysoup, your post strikes at the heart of the issue here. An impartial approach would be to consider all of the evidence and data without bias, and to make decisions based solely on that data.
That’s clearly not what’s happening here. Obama & Co. are pushing through an agenda, not considering the facts and acting on them. If the data shows us that we are destroying our planet, then fine. But damn, let’s look at the data before we make that decision.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Perhaps the EPA should change its name to GPA: Government Protection Agency. If the body charged with being an impartial voice supporting the environment has been corrupted, it needs to be replaced.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
[...] Sen. Inhofe: DO IT [...]
June 30th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Obama said that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase… claiming instead that “It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”
Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ timeless wisdom:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.
…Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”
And after the way they rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
It seems to me that the flaw in the debate is when people assume that CO2 emission is what causes global climate change. That is debunked for Obama to continue that charade for political gain is shameful. Now to the question of getting off of Petroleum. Yes there are better, cheaper, cleaner alternatives but when Obama and the Green’s refuse to even discuss Nuclear power it just makes you wonder exactly what the agenda is. Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest alternative fuel. Imagine small fusion plants placed in commuities that power them for 20 years or more then replaced. electricity for pennies a KW. Thats the future. Not some silly mile high wind mill and certainly not agriculural fuels. Hydrogen electric fuel for vehicles and small nuclear power stations for communities now thats technology.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
People accept the fact global warming is real and that man has inserted his contribution to it geometrically. Not just through combustion of carbon fuels, but though grazing of cattle, deforestation, and thermal pollution. There is a cyclical volatility in global warming, the natural cycles, the sunspots, etc, and the secular trends on top of that, us, we the humon.There are way too many of us on the globe now and our industries are horrifying to the planet. as the developing countries catch up it will only get worse. Its been proven mathematically and modeled by computer to a T. If you want to be part of the ill informed recividist flat earth society you should confuse yourselves as part of an intelligent conservative movement. Intelligent conservatives clean up their campsites, put out their fires, carry back their plastic and leave no ugly trash behind. If you ever took a year of general chemistry in college and learned the universal thermodynamical formulaes taught to all scientists you would be a believer.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
Don’t Believe In Global Warming? That’s “Treason!”…
You’ve got to love the open-minded thinking of the liberal left, particularly when someone holds an opinion that contradicts anything they consider to be a fact. Our latest example of this type of behavior comes from the official newspaper of t…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
[...] make matters worse the EPA gets to head up this little pet project, the same EPA who suppressed their own report disputing Global Warming. YES WE [...]
August 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Присоединяюсь, статья интересная и поучительная
September 11th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Are the EPA crazy! There had to be some major interest for the suppressing.
Someone need to be FIRED!
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Хотел бы задать деликатный вопрос. Могли бы Вы более подробно расписать эту информацию?
October 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Мнения, как я и ожидал- расходятся. Но ничего страшного, все равно мы придём к единому