By Michelle Malkin
The Obama administration doesn’t want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don’t want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion, thousand-page “cap and trade” bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.
The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.
On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the 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 one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth in science took a back seat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”
They can’t hide the truth forever.
Trust me. They will. “He who holds the gold rules,” and at present they do! Democrats and rinos that want to protect their backside. As stated, wait until 2010/2012 and see the ordinary people that don’t read wake up when their basic expenses go up four fold. Only when it hit’s their pocketbook will they start to understand and read the truth. Sad but true. Right now the ordinary american is too wrapped up in Michael Jackson’s demise. They have no knowledge of what is happening. Fact, not folly!l
Did you hear that Micheal Jackson died?
Thanks to the media letting us all down, everybody knows that Micheal Jackson died. But, how many people know about this absolutely dreadful bill passed by the House?
Let’s see, on the one hand you have a freakishly odd pop star die for, at present, unknown reasons.
On the other, you have an out of control government coming one step closer to enacting and codefiying the most draconian measures to control very facet of American life ever.
Which is more important to the American people?
If I were a conspiracy guy, I would be thinking that the death of Micheal Jackson was timed perfectly to distract the nation from this bill.
I am not a conspiracy guy, I lean more towards a poorly timed coincidence, but even Fox news was wall to wall Micheal Jackson. Even Sean Hannity was all about Micheal.
It just really ticks me off….still!
I’m sorry. This is supposed to be about the Malkin peice above. A comment on that is warrented.
I knew when the Obama administration was voted in, that in organizations such as the EPA, science was going to take a backseat to political ideaology.
But this shows that they didn’t throw science in the backseat, they threw it out the window. And it is now being run over by the bus!
“Also in attendance at the press conference which took place at 12:32 PM EDT Thursday were Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Rep Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Rep. John Fleming (R-Louis.).
Yet, despite this press conference, and the significance of this revelation just before a key House vote, LexisNexis identified not one television news report on this subject.
In related news:
“But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.”
A crisis is a fork in the road of our lives. It can lead us to entropy or to a kind of rebirth. Time and memory are divided into pre-crisis and post-crisis. It can rob us of everything we need to survive and adapt, or it can provide us energy, discipline and determination that we didnâ€™t know we had. These resources can allow us to tackle the challenges we face. We can, if we are lucky enough to survive it, come to see a crisis as our salvation.
Other civilizations have declined, of course. Neither the Romans nor the British were famous for their ecology or human development. But the scale and global appeal of the American Dream threaten a human future on this planet in a way that neither of those civilizations could match.
History is full of “crackpots” who foresaw elements of the current crisis (financial, climate, etc.). These “nutcases” drew guffaws from mainstram media for years, if they were noticed at all. Meanwhile, the sober men of sound judgment built and maintained a civilization that has eaten the world then turned upon itself. People who can see beyond the present are more necessary than ever when the old answers have simply stopped working.
So many of the ways in which we live our lives are just habit hardened into institution. The details of our daily life often have more to do with the interests of a few powerful people than with efficacy or the possibilities available to us. Instead of turning off our minds and ears when unusual people say unusual things we should be asking ourselves why we find them so threatening. Even those with so much invested in current practice could always adapt and reinvest in better ways of thinking and living. Why is change so scary?
People learn to cope with the dysfunctional by pretending that it is normal. When our world is shown to be dangerously out of balance, it threatens this carefully-cultivated ignorance and the sense of well-being it allows. When the movie Dr. Strangelove was released, it was beloved by younger audiences but reviled by older ones. Its undeniable picture of the lunacy of the Cold War was unacceptable for those who had helped construct that world. It caused them to feel the fear and shame which were the natural human responses to a thoroughly unnatural way of living. The reverence and consensus reality needed to stave off these uncomfortable feelings melted under the dark humor at the heart of Kubrickâ€™s film.
We will have to learn to accept how unreal our world is. Our homes, our jobs, our politics, our culture and our lives are built around a series of expectations formed during a unique moment in history when the world was nearly destroyed and America alone stood unscathed, unrivaled in wealth and power. Those days have long passed, and the plenty they promised faded into memory for all but a few.
We can recover and even thrive in the years to come, but it will mean accepting new ideas regardless of the source. Workable ways of building a human future are not going to come from people saying the expected things and behaving in expected ways. They are going to come from the strange, the unusual, and the awkward. We need to be able to think in a way that allows us to perceive the value of ideas even if they scare us a little, because accepting the status quo is the most frightening idea of all.
Does that include suppressing the truth?
Does what you post have anything to do with justifying the EPA’s action of telling one of their own anaylists to shut up?
Do the ends justify the means?
“Workable ways of building a human future are not going to come from people saying the expected things and behaving in expected ways.”
I expect our government, and it’s agencies, to be honest. Is this what you want, suppression of facts to gain a political goal that favors your ideaology?
You’re ASSUMING the story abuot someone being suppressed is true, because you want to believe that. You assume a lot of things that you dont’ know for sure are true. So do I, but not to the extent you do. You say the suppresion of facts for political gain is pathetic. It sure it, no matter who does it. Both parties do it, but the Republican party has always done it more, much more. However, both parties are now deeply corrupt, and for people like you who continue to believe that one party is better than the other is what is PATHETIC.
So now the authenticity of the story is an assumption on my part?
That’s a stretch, even for you.
Tell you what, you find some evidence that the story was manufactured, and post it here, and I will give that some serious consideration.
But I do have to say that I saw this old fellow, Allen Carlin, on the Glenn Beck show. And what he is saying IS exactly what I have been saying. As far as I can see, he’s right on, and I see no reason to doubt that the story is authentic.
Of course you would call into question the authenticity of the entire story, as you have no other angle to attack it on.
As far as suppression of facts to obtain a political goal. It is more than likely that I have believed a lie or two in my lifetime to swollow some sort of bitter pill. We all have, that’s because we are humans, we are not infalable.
What I am saying is that when you KNOW something is a lie, yet still use it to advance your ideaology, that is what is pathetic.
Personally, I believe everything I say. And I believe Alan Carlin because he says the exact same things that I believe. And I do not doubt this story because the EPA is full of people just like you, and you dismiss everything I believe. And if I worked for you, you would probably fire me.
I spelled that guy’s name wrong twice. It’s Alen Carlin.
You could try and prove that the story wasn’t manufactored- you brought it up I didn’t. But you see such a thing is very difficult to prove, isn’t it? I dont’ have the time to anyway. I just know how the right-wing works, and I’ve read some thing about the above and how it probably didn’t happen that way. But I also believe both sides are corrupt- so maybe it did. Problem with you is you think the right wing should be wearing angel’s wings which is absurd to the extreme- which makes you absurd to the extreme.
Ms. Malkin is as usual, right on with her take on the politics of the Left Wing Church of Global Warming! She’s also very intelligent and beautiful. If the voices of logic were as smart and beautiful as she is, we would be on our way out of this SNAFU!
Are you profiling me?