Obama Administration Cover-Up At EPA

Written by TraditionalValues.org


Senator Inhofe Wants Investigation About Suppressed EPA Report - Where Is It and Why Wasn't It Considered?

Alan Carlin, an analyst with the EPA authored a 98-page report questioning the EPA's views on climate change and global warming. Carlin's research rejected the popular idea that regulating carbon dioxide is a way of reducing global warming. His report was suppressed by the EPA and he was ordered to stop talking about it. Carlin's suppressed report, however, came to the attention of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who has been a skeptic about climate change for years - and formerly headed the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Sen. Inhofe has ordered an investigation into why the EPA suppressed Carlin's report. According to Inhofe, "He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA. We're going to expose it."

Carlin says the EPA is using outdated information and unreliable data from the United Nations. He also expressed concern about science decisions being made by President Obama. "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's in effect judging what the science says. We need to look at it harder."

Carlin was interviewed on Fox News recently. He stated: "The most important conclusion in my view, was that EPA needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend upon reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and in fact have done."

In Carlin's detailed report, he observes:

As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made.




You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials