According to a release from Senator John Thune (R-SD), he is joining Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) in calling for an investigation concerning the report casting doubt about anthropogenic global warming that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) buried before the cap and trade global warming tax vote last week.
On the eve of the HR 2454 “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” vote last Friday it came to light that the EPA had in its possession a report which pointed to natural causes for planetary warming, but it refused to make that report public. What’s more, several emails regarding this report were also outed. One said, in part:
They are significant because they present information critical to the justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed endangerment finding. They are valid because they explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.
Yesterday Senator Inhofe announced he was going to see the matter of the hidden report investigated. From Fox News:
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 Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.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.”
I doubt the report would have made a difference with the die hard socialists in the House, but it might have made the difference in the vote with some of the more reasonable ones. What’s more, the American people have a right to know.
Today, according to Thune’s release, he sent a letter to to Bill Roderick, Acting Inspector General at the EPA asking him to investigate this coverup.
Thune’s letter reads as follows:
June 30, 2009
Mr. Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Roderick
I am writing to ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
On April 17, 2009, the EPA issued a proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171). I understand that EPA issued an endangerment finding through the lens of global climate change. According to EPA’s proposed rule:
“Concentrations of greenhouse gases. are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future. are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
This endangerment finding will have broad consequences on virtually every part of our economy. It is critical that this proposed endangerment finding be based on accurate and balanced science relating to the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
I am deeply troubled by the recent discovery of internal EPA e-mails depicting a clear attempt to stifle scientific dissent with EPA on a matter of great importance to our environment and our economy. On June 24, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee made public an e-mail chain between Dr. Alan Carlin and his superior, Dr. Al McGartland, Director of EPA’s NCEE. Dr. McGartland’s e-mails indicate an apparent attempt to suppress information that would have contradicted EPA’s preconceived conclusion that certain greenhouse gasses contribute to climate change, and therefore, are harmful to human health. Specifically, Dr. McGartland writes:
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues as passed for this round. The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see on impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to all heads of executive departments and agencies calling for higher standards of scientific integrity. The executive memorandum notes, “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.” On April 23, 2009, Administrator Jackson issued a similar memo entitled “Transparency in EPA’s Operations,” which reiterates her pledge for open and transparent rulemakings that consider contrasting view points.
I respectfully request that you address the following questions relating to events surrounding EPA’s endangerment finding:
Did Administrator Jackson or Ms. Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration have knowledge of dissenting scientific information within the EPA on the matter of the carbon dioxide endangerment finding? If so, when did they have knowledge of this information and to what extent did they suppress this information?
Did Administrator Jackson, Ms. Browner, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration knowingly exclude or authorize other EPA personnel to knowingly exclude dissenting scientific information with regard to the endangerment finding?
In light of Mr. Carlin’s emails, could EPA’s proposed endangerment finding or actions in refusing to properly weigh Mr. Carlin’s research mean that EPA’s endangerment finding could be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act?
In addition to Mr. Carlin’s research, what other studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form did the EPA consider that did not support its endangerment finding?
What other correspondence or electronic communication in whatever form was generated by the EPA or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration relating to the EPA’s decision about what studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form should be or were considered by the EPA when making its endangerment finding?
Did the relevant group assigned to work on the endangerment finding within EPA accept new information or modifications to previously submitted information on or after March 16, 2009?
Again, I ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior EPA officials and NCEE officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Thank you in advance for pursuing this investigation as soon as possible. I look forward to reviewing your findings as soon as they are available.
United States Senate
It’s bad enough to have this massive tax imposed on the American people for the fraudulent premise we know as anthropogenic global warming; it adds insult to injury for a government agency that is paid by the taxpayers and ostensibly works for the taxpayers to hide information which sheds light on the matter.
There is far, far too much hostility toward the American taxpayer from the government which exists to serve the taxpayer. These elitists are out of touch with average Americans and treat foreign tyrants with more respect and deference than they do the American people.
This insanity has to stop, and the upcoming Independence Day Tea Parties are a perfect opportunity for patriotic Americans to start tearing down this edifice of contempt we know as the federal government.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.