Obama Silences Science: Is This the Change We Were Promised?

by William Yeatman on June 30, 2009

President Barack Obama rode into the White House promising open and honest government. So why did his administration bully a career official at the Environmental Protection Agency into silence?

Last week, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a 98 page report written by Alan Carlin, a 38 year veteran of the EPA, on the shaky science employed by global warming alarmists. Mr. Carlin had submitted the report to his superiors for the EPA to consider as it deliberated whether or not carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare. As noted by my colleague Marlo Lewis, an “endangerment” finding isn’t mere bureaucratese. Instead, it’s a legal tripwire that would spark an economically ruinous regulatory chain reaction under the Clean Air Act (to read more on that, click here).

But the EPA would not consider Carlin’s report. In a series of incriminating emails, Carlin’s boss bluntly informed him that his report would remain secret for political reasons.

Late Thursday night, CEI went ahead and posted a draft version of the document, which you can read here.

In a not-so-subtle dig at the supposed backwardness of his predecessor four months ago, President Obama said that science is “about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Now we learn that his administration has silenced a critical voice in the EPA. Is this the change we were promised?

Members of Congress are suitably outraged. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), cited the report on the floor of the House of Representatives last Friday. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) told FoxNews that he intends to investigate the matter further.

The story has made big waves in the media. For accounts, click on this links: New York Times, San Francisco Examiner, Michelle Malkin, Dow Jones (Subscription Req’d), American Spectator, and National Review.

Bob R Geologist, Tuc June 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm

Excessive CO2 is dangerous in coal mines, and has long been recognized as a hazard as it displaces oxygen causing suffocation. It is constantly checked with the use of safety lamps in coal mines today. In the old days canarys were used for this purpose. On the Earth's surface any amount naturally in the air,(it is not known to have ever reached a level as high as 1%), CO2 is a vital necessity for the growth of plant life. Hot houses raising food plants and flowers often boost the CO2 level to speed up and promote growth of their crops. However, where it has been planned to sequester CO2 produced by power plants in abandoned mines and exhausted oil fields, a permanent hazard is created, especially if near a town. On a calm night, a terrorist coould set off a bomb nea the containment device and smother every one in the community. This happened naturally at an African settlement on a lake shore. The lake suddenly released a considerable amount of stored CO2 in its lake bed, possibly due to a sudden decrease in atmospheric pressure, with disasterous results to the nearby settlement.

capps.b July 21, 2009 at 11:19 am

Large amounts of C02 are said to be a dangerous greenhouse gas that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

It is less than 1% of our atmosphere. H2o is a much more significant greenhouse gas, and is unable to be regulated. So they do not make demands for controlling it.

I think the global warming hysteria is a prime example of really bad science. Anyone who has been watching sunspot activity knows that sunspot storms are synonymous with high tempters, and the absence of sunspot activity leads to a general decline in daily tempters.

Has anyone noticed the cooling trend? It is quite apparent.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: