I can’t say that I’m surprised, which itself is incredibly sad.

Michelle Malkin has the lowdown on a 98-page report that the EPA decided would have a “very negative impact” on their office.

From 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-dollar, 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, emails, 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 backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “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.”

Is this the ’science’ that we’re supposed to trust, as we hand over our hard-earned money, our jobs, and our freedoms in exchange for ‘Cap and Trade’? 

As I’ve said from the beginning, this ‘Global Warming’ movement, as we’ve come to know it, has nothing to do with protecting the environment.   It has nothing to do with science.  If it did, there would be careful consideration and thoughtful examination of all data. 

When consider the fact that we are in the most difficult economic times since the Great Depression, and the fact that ‘Cap and Trade’ will harm our economy by taxing the living daylights out of energy and business (thus creating massive inflation), no logical person can conclude that the motives of this Administration and the EPA have anything to do with ‘protecting our environment’. 

While reading Atlas Shrugged, I learned to always question the motives and premises of individuals who propose massive and sweeping control mechanisms that contradict individual liberties.  In every case–whether it be smoking bans, mandatory seatbelt laws, or card check legislation–I’ve found that the premises of those backing such legislation aren’t honest.  They always use the veil of ‘the greater good’ to push forth their agendas, but common sense tells you that these ‘do-gooders’ have an ulterior motive.

For example:

• Mandatory seat belt laws simply offer another way for the government to trap and fine you, yet their proponents tell you it’s because ‘government loves you’ and wants you to be safe.  Seriously?  Do you really believe that? 
• Smoking ban proponents say that they simply want the right for everyone to ‘breathe clean air’, but every human being already has that right because they have the freedom to make a choice as to whether or not they’ll work in or frequent an establishment that allows the legal act of smoking.  It’s obvious, especially when you consider that the Wisconsin Legislature just passed a smoking ban that exempts 35,000 Casino employees from ‘the right to breathe clean air’.  In reality, they’re using this pseudo concern for the collective health of society as a means of controlling private property, and thus weaken (and ultimately destroy) our rights as property-owning citizens.  
• Card Check legislation claims to want to give more bargaining power to employees (how thoughtful), but the powerful unions–which have experienced a huge decline in membership over the past thirty years–simply want more income-producing bodies paying dues and supporting the political causes that give them more power. 

In each case I’ve listed above, you have a group of power-hungry individuals who stand to gain more power and/or more wealth by putting a gun to your head and telling you that you can’t be trusted to live as you see fit.  They dishonestly convince you that they really have your best interests in mind.  In reality, you’re simply an ignorant subject who stands in the way of their power-grab.

The global warming issue is no different, and you inherently know this.  You should know that anytime ’science’ is biased and suppresses any further argument (as Malkin chronicled in her post above) it really isn’t ’science’ at all.  No dissent should be silenced, no matter how ‘noble’ the cause. 

So what are the motives behind Cap and Trade?  There are too many to list here, but you have to know that there are some people who stand to make a good deal of money from this legislation.  Al Gore and several others are deeply invested in Carbon Credits.  General Electric stands to become even more of a wealthy superpower if this passes.  Windmill and solar companies will have guaranteed profits.  And the government?  Well, they’ll control every move you make, which is exactly what they want.   This is nothing short of corporatism and a control-grab under the guise of ‘caring about Mother Earth.

This isn’t about Democrats and Republicans, even though that’s what the media would have you believe.  This is about powerful and wealthy individuals–who don’t have to worry about heating bills they can’t afford or losing their manufacturing jobs–who see you as a threat to their lofty aspirations.  Period. 

Tweet This Post