BY: NCViking

The hypothesis of Global Warming Climate Change may have been one that was well thought out but it is not standing up to testing or being proven by reality. This should cause reasoned individuals to reconsider and/or debate it, but its not happening. The issue has been blown up so big, with so many reputations and dollars on the line at the very highest levels that it has become a runaway train. Debate is being silenced, the public indoctrinated, careers destroyed; a whitewash is going on and valid dissent is being continually suppressed while boondoggle legislation hangs in the balance. Case in point: a 38-year veteran researcher at the EPA releases a 98 page report questioning Global Warming Climate Change theory and the agencies role in regulating CO2 because of unexplained information. The report was suppressed by fear of firing as a political urgency was forcing what normally would take a year to consider for regulation through in just weeks. Gee, I wonder why?

This stinking rat keeps getting more pungent every day.

From CBSnews.com (Fox News video below)

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “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.”

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report’s primary author: “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.”

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 — the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday,” Carlin said. “In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment.” (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

• Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
• Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
• State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
• Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
• Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010