Dear Friend,
As you read this week's WeGetIt.org Wednesday Bulletin, please be thinking of friends who would benefit from it, and then forward it to them. Thanks for your support!
Suppression of internal EPA report belies commitment
to transparency
| |
 |
| |
Video: EPA analyst Carlin was told that "the administrator
and
the administration has decided to move forward on
endangerment,
and your comments do not help." |
On April 24, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed "endangerment finding" that carbon dioxide poses a threat to human health and welfare. That action prompted Congress to begin considering global warming legislation.
(Click here for our report on House passage of a climate bill at the end of June.)
But more than a month before, EPA analyst Alan Carlin submitted an internal report that challenged the EPA's intent to regulate carbon dioxide to reduce global warming. The 98-page report (PDF) called the science underlying the EPA's intents outdated and cited multiple refereed scientific and economic studies in recent years that show that human influence on climate change is minimal and efforts to fight it will cost far more than their effects will be worth.
Fox News reports that Carlin's "boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue." That effectively covered up existence of the report until the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) obtained and released it.
Now Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading Congressional critic of manmade global warming fears, has demanded an investigation. "He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Inhofe told FOX News. "We're going to expose it."
The decision not to include Carlin's report in EPA findings related to greenhouse gas regulation apparently was made by the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, who e-mailed Carlin saying,
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. [Emphasis added]
That the comments didn't help the legal or policy case for EPA Administrator Jackson's decision to regulate carbon dioxide, however, is just the point. The decision appears to have been made despite contrary evidence known to the EPA but not revealed publicly.
As Kimberly Strassel points out in the Wall Street Journal, the EPA's muzzling Carlin is particularly ironic in light of
- claims by NASA scientist James Hansen, who has spoken publicly promoting alarm about manmade global warming over 1,400 times, that the Bush administration tried to censor him;
- EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's promise, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency"; and
- the fact that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science.
More evidence that the Sun, not man, controls
Earth's temperature
In his book The Chilling Stars
, Henrik Svensmark explains his theory that changes in solar magnetic wind output could control changes in cloud formation on Earth and thus control changes in Earth's surface temperature. Here's how it works: Earth is bathed in a current of cosmic rays coming from other stars in and beyond the Milky Way. When cosmic rays collide with certain molecules in our atmosphere, they break those apart and form new compounds, some of which, electrically charged, are excellent nuclei for condensation of water vapor--that is, for the formation of clouds. Clouds, in turn, have a net cooling effect on the Earth by reflecting solar energy back into space before it reaches the surface.
The cosmic ray current isn't steady. It varies. The stronger it is, the more clouds form, cooling the Earth--and vice versa. But what causes cosmic ray current to vary? Svensmark has shown very strong correlation between it and the strength of solar magnetic wind--the two vary in tandem, and the solar wind, in turn, varies in tandem with solar energy output. Many scientists, including those working with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, long thought the variation in solar energy output (about 0.1%) was simply too slight to explain late twentieth-century global warming, but they were considering only the energy flux. If Svensmark is right, then solar energy flux is magnified by solar wind flux's effect on cosmic rays and, through them, on cloud formation.
Svensmark argues that the solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud connection is sufficient to explain the vast majority of all observed global temperature change. Not all scientists accept his theory, and some have even called it discredited. But the world's largest particle physics laboratory, CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), which funded Svensmark's earlier research, has now
funded more comprehensive research, indicating that its leaders respect the work. It could spell the end of manmade global warming doom-saying, as suggested by the powerful correlation shown in the accompanying graph.
Beware the dangers of sloganeering
"God's original plan was to hang out in a garden with some naked vegetarians."
The poster has caught on in some evangelical environmentalist circles. One must admit it has a humorous ring to it! For some it becomes the basis for a call to a simpler lifestyle as one path to environmental stewardship.
But is it sound theology?
Not if we take our cue from Scripture. Ephesians 1:3-6 tells us that God chose people in Christ "before the foundation of the world . . . to the praise of the glory of His grace." Revelation 13:8 teaches of either a Book of Life written, or Christ as the Lamb slain, "before the foundation of the world," depending on how it's translated.
In both cases, it's clear that God's original plan, before anyone ever sinned, included the display of His grace (showing love to those who deserve wrath) in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and therefore must have included the occurrence of sin and our exclusion from the Garden of Eden.
To think otherwise is to suggest that Adam and Eve's sin took God by surprise.
It's good to integrate theological beliefs with environmental concerns, but we need to do it carefully lest we inadvertently teach both poor theology and poor practice.
Now, please forward this message to your pastor, other Christian leaders, and friends and urge them to sign the WeGetIt.org Declaration, too!
The more people sign, the stronger the message our leaders will hear that Biblical principles and factual evidence, not media hype about speculative fears like global warming, should guide our care for the environment and the poor.
Gratefully,
-- The WeGetIt.org campaign team
We value your privacy. If you received this from a friend, you can join the campaign at www.WeGetIt.org.
This message was originally sent to [email address suppressed] because someone signed the WeGetIt.org Declaration as "fullname."
Edit your name | Bulletin Archives |
Unsubscribe
| Inquiries
