How's that transparency in science coming, fellas?

Rick Moran
Here's a great opinion piece by Kim Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal on the EPA scientist who was muzzled for his contrary views on making carbon a pollutant.

This story is not going away any time soon because the EPA refuses to answer questions posed by Republicans in Congress and keeps insisting that the scientist who was told not to write anything more about global warming - 35 year EPA vet Alan Carlin - was heard out.

Emails from Carlin's boss Al McGartland tell a different story.

Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have 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." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

Making carbon a pollutant and subject to the tender regulatory mercies of the EPA is going to add a massive layer of bureaucracy to energy production, thus driving up costs, discouraging innovation, and all the attendant evils that a huge increase in paperwork entails.

Read the rest of Strassel's article on this clear example of hypocrisy by the Obama administration.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky





Here's a great opinion piece by Kim Strassel in today's Wall Street Journal on the EPA scientist who was muzzled for his contrary views on making carbon a pollutant.

This story is not going away any time soon because the EPA refuses to answer questions posed by Republicans in Congress and keeps insisting that the scientist who was told not to write anything more about global warming - 35 year EPA vet Alan Carlin - was heard out.

Emails from Carlin's boss Al McGartland tell a different story.

Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have 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." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

Making carbon a pollutant and subject to the tender regulatory mercies of the EPA is going to add a massive layer of bureaucracy to energy production, thus driving up costs, discouraging innovation, and all the attendant evils that a huge increase in paperwork entails.

Read the rest of Strassel's article on this clear example of hypocrisy by the Obama administration.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky