What began in the comments section at Watts Up With That, has made its way to the US Senate;
A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.
“He came out with the truth. They don’t want the truth at the EPA,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he’s ordered an investigation. “We’re going to expose it.”
The Carlin report is here. (pdf)
oh-oh. cei.org seems to have become a non-entity. A victim of the times, may I assume?
How lucky the Dems were that Michael Jackson died and the media pounced on that story instead of this ugly Waxman-Markey bill. How fortunate for them; gave them the opportunity to fly under the radar of most people.
The Goracle waved his magic willy and that website disappeared?
Boy oh boy. The EPA gets discredited? The potential to get everything thrown under the bus for review and everyone see the massive ripoff they are? The chance of BS regs and fines out the window? Sue the EPA for past judgments…errrr…shakedowns back?
What?!
I can dream.
Well I for one am glad that Obamassiah, in addition to filling my gas tank and fridge, is providing an open honest approach to making science based decisions.
So unlike Bush.
Go Obamassiah go, dig, dig, dig, deeper, faster.
When you get tired digging, pass the shovel to The Goreacle, ’cause he’s a real Climate Expert and always tells us the truth.
How can it be pier reviewed if some loser buries it?
From the hidden report
“Global temperatures have declined- extending the current downtrend to 11 years”
Carlin (acc. FOXNews): “Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. That’s normally a scientific judgment and he is in effect judging what the science says.”
And yet, whether Mr. President’s looking at it from “a theological perspective” or “a scientific perspective”, a real opinion on the question af abortion is “above (his) pay grade.”
richfisher @ 12:28 pm “How can it be pier reviewed if some loser buries it?”
It is pier reviewed if someone drops it in the lake wearing cement shoes… the Chicago way.
Yoohooo, Environment Minister Prentice: Pay attention!
The Energy and Climate Bill barely passed through Congress 219 to 212, it will be either gutted or quashed by the Senate.
Does the Senate have the power to subpoena Gore ?
Yes Ron they do, that would be quite the show if he actually had to face the evidence.
Does any of Gore’s testimonies to Congress or their commitees open him up to things like “fraud”, “perjury”, etc. ?
The problem is that this Obamination….whackjob/Malarky Bill….could be amended to hell(gutted)in the senate, then passed and then the two bills are blended….the “new language”(house of Rep version) replaced….and it goes forth with BS’ (Barry Soetoro’s) endorsement.
Our only chance is if it is absolutely defeated in the Senate.
Curious
**Does any of Gore’s testimonies to Congress or their commitees open him up to things like “fraud”, “perjury”, etc. ?**
Testimony under oath??? definitely…everything has consequences…..eventually…
It’s called “contempt of Congress”
Wouldn’t it be nice to see Al Gore hoisted on his own petard?
That would be a case of a retard on a petard.
The ironic thing about Gore is that he flunked out of divinity school and went on to become a demigod. And after he dies, they will put a stone over his crypt, and wait breathlessly, I am sure.
I can just see Lizzy May, swallowing her liver with this one. Do we still use the term apoplexy?
Wait for the warmie whines, over this stab in their lying hearts
Carlin’s “boss” told him to “stop”, as it was not worth his (the Boss’) job, just another case of lefty threats!!!!
It’s my understanding that the Senate has some additional pressure to pass the Cap’nTrade bill.
“The EPA indicated last month that it is considering regulating carbon dioxide, citing the 2007 US Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
In that ruling, the high court held that EPA not only has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions, the agency has an obligation under the law to do so.”
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2009/03/04/9197655/us-epa-likely-to-pose-co2-rule-by-mid-year-acc.html
The consequences of not acting are private citizens filing lawsuits against the government for not fulfilling its mandate. Keep in mind this is my simpleton understanding and explanation of this issue. I predict Cap’nTrade will go forward with Canada and MP Jim Prentice following with bells on.
Remember, BO has to raise revenue for his healthcare initiative. Revenue from CO2 is free money with nowhere to go except into his pet projects. He will use this money to soften the blow of this new spending. He’s hoping the wheels don’t fall off until 2013, it’s a race to the next election.
Keep in mind that many democrat Americans think that the Canadian model is what they want. They won’t know the details before they get it.
Hey Conan Doyle belived in fairies, why not Obama.
He wrote Sherlock Holmes.
The World is full of Unicorn gazzers now.
MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA
Judgement: Cut& paste
[quote]EPA would only regulate emissions, and even then, it would have to delay any action “to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance,” [/quote]
That sure sounds like a lawsuit, by Automakers and or bondholders, would challenge the EPA
{aka Boxers fear)
[quote]In the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, Congress authorized the State Department—not EPA—to formulate United States foreign policy with reference to environmental matters relating to climate. See §1103(c), 101 Stat. 1409.[/quote]
Clinton play a role,,,,
Disenting Opinion:
Petitioners’ difficulty in demonstrating causation and redressability is not surprising given the evident mismatch between the source of their alleged injury—catastrophic global warming—and the narrow subject matter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit. The mismatch suggests that petitioners’ true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases—not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. [quote] ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
Why would anyone think the EPA would suffer Climate change damage Suits from a state or individual.
The damage is done to the parties effected by the Cost of regulation… citizens of the USA