Stopping the EPA's aggression

Now that the GOP has taken over the House of Representatives, and will most likely take over the Senate in 2012, they appear to be gearing up to reign in the EPA's aggression by using a rarely used law called the the Congressional Review Act. The CRA was created in 1996 that allows Congress to veto regulatory changes that were created in the Executive branch agencies, such as the EPA.

According to GOP lawmakers, they intend to turn the EPA on its ear to include using the CRA. It allows the GOP to do an end run on democrats, because it allows them to skip Senate filibusters; which means that the GOP doesn't have to negotiate with Harry Reid to bring a vote to the floor to secure a 60 vote majority.

Due to the historic upset in the House, it's likely that some democrat lawmakers may support the GOP's efforts in curtailing the EPA's contentious regulations. With a year to go until the next election cycle, many of these democrats are supporting the effort for fear of losing their seats.

Whatever the case is, it seems that GOP lawmakers are prepared to use whatever means necessary to put the out of control EPA on a short leash.

We'll see.

Related stories: GOP plans strategy to stymie EPA

EPA Relied Heavily On Hadley CRU Data

With all the hullabaloo about the leaked emails from East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit, one aspect of it that's not being talked about too much is agencies, such as the EPA and their reliance on that data to make energy policy. The continued analysis of the code contained within the leaked information clearly shows that fraud was the flavor of the day. Not only does it prove that data was deliberately being manipulated, but, databases were clearly in disarray and what one email from Phil Jones seems to indicate that he wanted material destroyed when skeptics discovered that the UK had a freedom of information act.

What one has to understand is that Hadley CRU wields enormous influence in outside circles and purportedly has the largest climate database in the world; it's models were used in the IPCC's 2007 report, which the EPA has acknowledged it relied upon very heavily when making conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

As more and more information is being brought out by coders looking at the data, it seems that much has to be explained in those emails and data sets. But, what seems to be going around in the state run, fringe media is the legality of these emails being "hacked" and the predictable downplaying of its contents.

What these reporters are ignoring to ask is four important questions:

1. Is this the first time data has escaped Hadley?

2. Since the emails and data go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not?

3. Since the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching, isn't it a little odd that these emails were "hacked" and released to the world?

4. Why hasn't any investigation been called for?

Of course, we can't expect the fringe media to ask questions that may lead to unwanted answers.

Even though Senator Inhofe has called for an investigation, whether or not he will get the support of other Congressional members is the question. Many politicians have been bamboozled into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax and are not likely to change their view points, particularly since a new revenue stream is in the works with cap and trade legislation.

In 1988, this entire issue was started by Maurice Strong and further propagated by James Hansen with a preconceived notion that the modern human industrial population was causing the earth's temperature to rise. Preconceived notions are supposed to be anathema to scientists, because it tends to send them looking for evidence to support it and discarding any that disproves it. What these emails and data sets show is that these scientists were doing everything they could to manipulate data and, in Phil Jones' own words, hide the decline when results were showing the opposite.

Science also demands sharing of data. Evidence must be verifiable and results must be reproducible in the real world by other scientists, this is how it goes through the filters to keep everyone honest in the process. However, this didn't seem to be the case with the Hadley scientists. Many times data had to be obtained from skeptical scientists through the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to indicate that something was trying to be hidden.

EPA Removes Free Speech Rights From Its Employees

by William La Jeunesse When Zabel and Williams released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use a cap and trade program to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves. Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves. Williams and Zabel oppose cap and trade -- a controversial government allowance program in which companies are issued emissions limits, or caps, which they can then trade -- as a means to fight climate change. On their own time, Williams and Zabel made a video expressing these opinions. Read the rest at FoxNews