About two years ago, NASA scientist James Hansen claimed that the Bush administration was trying to silence him. There was no evidence to support this claim and he gave numerous talks science since then. Needless to say the media had a field day with this story. It turns out though that the EPA is censoring one of its own scientists over a paper he produced which didn’t support the wild claims about global warming that the agency is making. And of course the media is totally mute on this one.
<!-- begin pfv --><!-- writer and photo option -->
<!-- end option --><!-- leadin graphic -->
<!-- end leadin graphic -->
<!-- standing head -->HEAT OF THE MOMENT
<!-- end standing head --><!-- head -->EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change
<!-- end head --><!-- deck -->Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
<!-- end deck -->
Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling 2009 WorldNetDaily
<!-- end copyright -->
<!-- begin bodytext -->Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year [script removed]
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental [script removed]
His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No, I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this bureau.'"
A March 12 [script removed]
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of [script removed]
"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."
After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.
"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "… 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."
To read more go to http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031