You Global Warming Suckers Can't Handle the Truth, Says Sen. Jim Inhofe
As predicted, the House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and guarantee Americans a polar bear in every pot, so long as that pot is made from 75% post-consumer granola. Now the measure heads to the Senate, where at least one man has the carbon-based stones to ask: What, exactly, is the Environmental Protection Agency trying to hide?
A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
"[Report author Alan Carlin] came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."
Yes! Transparency, that's what we need in these matters; just think how much time we've wasted on "evolution" because people keep planting those hoax fossils underground. Anyway, kudos to Jim Inhofe for standing up to the EPA on behalf of skilled scientist Alan Carlin…
An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist — not a scientist — included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."
"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up … a set of comments."
Oh, what, now you have to be a "scientist" to write policy reports about science? Who gets to decide what makes a person a "scientist," anyway? That's right, other "scientists." See how this sham works?
And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go draft up a report disproving calculus. I just have a hunch, is all, and I hated that crap in school.
RSS
I have a BFA in Fine Arts. Emphasis on 'sculpture'. But I would never to assume to be an "artist" since I don't use my degree in the actual work of art. I design homes and residential needs of the homeless. But for me to write a report on the need of (or the No need of) art in today's society, or disolving the fact that Michealangio's The David has no significant purpose in today's culture of hip-hop and Pop would be insane. Although I sure I could actually sit down and write a report to some representative, senator, or their staff as to the need to tear down the Washington Monument. And I'm sure one of those crazy congressmen would grasp and go for it.
To accept the words of some yahoo in Iowa or Arkansas as the final word on issues they know nothing about is silly. And we all know better. Carlin is a bafoon with a personal agenda of making a name for himself. And I can promise you – he and all the other crazies (Palin, McCain, Neo-Cons, and even the lefters that spout crazy talk) will slowly disappear in the anuals of history as less-than-footnotes. They won't have even a line in some footnote.
"In Carlin’s defense, he also has a BS in Physics from MIT. I’m pretty sure that makes him a scientist."
Actually, he has a BS in Physics from *40 years ago*, and hasn't used the degree since. He's an economist by trade. He should stick to that.
Furthermore, his paper contains a whole raft of bunk that's already been disproven. It really is essentially worthless.
In Carlin’s defense, he also has a BS in Physics from MIT. I’m pretty sure that makes him a scientist.
Carlin’s report has two main points: 1) The last three years of data were not included in the EPA’s analysis of CO2 impact on global warming and 2) There may be more economical ways of reducing global warming than by regulating CO2.
But the Repubs are trying to draw the wrong conclusion from Carlin's report. The main conclusion of the report was not that global warming does not or could not exist. Nor was it that it will never be appropriate to regulate CO2. His conclusion was its premature to regulate CO2 now.
EPA has been in a rush to issue regulations on CO2 because they wanted to set a new policy no later than the 1-year anniversary of the SCOTUS decision.
My personal feelings, CO2 should be regulated if for no other reason than its a breathing and air quality (smog) issue. That is something that should be easily agreeable to regardless of global warming.