But it’s A Dry Heat

Well, with the aid of eight Republicans, the House narrowly approved the Cap and Tax bill that ensures that your liberties are severely curtailed in favor of discredited pseudo- science put forth by pseudo- scientists who are very interested in getting more of your money for themselves, and Liberals who believe they have a right to interfere in your lives in unprecedented fashion.

Now, it has (belatedly) come out that a scientific study of a dissenting opinion was squashed by the EPA and the Administration, so as to seemingly present the “appearance” of a unified front with respect to the “settled” science of Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the hell they are trying to label it as now.

The day before the House was to vote on a controversial energy bill destined to be the largest tax hike in American history, it was revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency had suppressed an internal report challenging the entire global warming myth.

Despite the importance of this study, and how it related to a debate about to ensue on the House floor, its existence and suppression went almost completely ignored by America’s media.

This, of course, comes in stark contrast to regular and frequent news reports in previous years accusing the Bush White House of intentionally censoring the science of climate change.


Yes, I know- it’s a shocker folks. The news media in the tank for their messiah? Oh say it aint so, Joe- Joe? Joe?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE BARTON (R-TEX.): Well, good afternoon. I’m Congressman Joe Barton the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we’re here today on a very serious matter.

We have the Obama administration, which was put into office on the pledge and the promise of openness and transparency and full disclosure and a new change in government. And one of their biggest issues is the issue of climate change and whether we should move a massive reorganization of our entire economy because of CO2 emissions.

In order to move forward, the EPA administrator had to find an endangerment finding, which is a legal term meaning the EPA administrator had to declare that there was an endangerment to human health, and, therefore, we needed to regulate this substance — in this case, CO2.

There is a group within the EPA that’s tasked with doing some of the economic and environmental analysis. And a career scientist in that group prepared an extensive report, close to 100 pages in length, in which he found that there were very serious concerns about going forward with the finding of endangerment. And that’s the substance of this press conference, is how that report was suppressed, censored, prevented from going through the review process.

 Also in attendance at the press conference which took place at 12:32 PM EDT Thursday were Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Rep Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Rep. John Fleming (R-Louis.).

Yet, despite this press conference, and the significance of this revelation just before a key House vote, LexisNexis identified not one television news report on this subject.


Not one. This was not because of a “lack of interest” onthe part of the American public- I am quite confident that if the American people were presented with either spending our grandchildren’s money on questionable science, or perhaps waiting until all the facts are in, they would choose the latter option. After all, we have enough of our money going to questionable things here- lets not add to this.

Thomas Paine, in his paper entitled “Common Sense”, makes this observation, “Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued, would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right are different things.”

And yet everyone seems to be in such a hurry to pass this abomination of a bill- without even reading it! So much for the lie about transparency, and the lie about having this bill (and all others) on the government website for public comment. Also going by the wayside is Hussein’s claim that he will listen to differing points of view.

John Hinderaker of Poweline has alerted everyone to the release of the suppressed EPA Carlin/Davidson report along with incriminating emails by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  President Obama and his administration have again been appropriately exposed. Obama’s intent can no longer be in question, and his deceptive activities are instructive as to the role the United Nations will play in his plan to address the use of American wealth.

Because the American news media has not properly and openly questioned Susan Rice about her deliberations with the IPCC, nor the U.S. intentions concerning proposed international “monies” related to CO2, you are obliged to read the referenced CEI and EPA documents yourself;  pay close attention to the copies of the emails contained in the CEI disclosure.  Here are the essential elements and findings of the Carlin/Davidson report dated March 9, 2009: PDO-Pacific decadal Oscillation / AMO-Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation/GCM-General Circulation Models/ IPCC- UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/CCSP- Climate Change Science Program/ TSD- Technical Support Document .


I guess the only bright spot in this whole mess is that this bill should die a slow death in the Senate, unless the jug-eared munchkin from Oz can pull another mad hatter out of his butt, because after people read this report, they should rightly be bleeding from their eyes at the blatant dishonesty of this Administration and its minions in suppressing any dissent, especially when this affects us in so many ways.

Want to sell your house? Not so fast- you will have to have a Federal Inspector come out and see if you are “green” enough- if not, you will have to spend money retrofitting the house before you can sell it. This is just one example- they want to control what kind of light bulbs you buy, limit your shower time (that’s a biggie for women, I know), how much water you use (even if it is your own well). This law would also drive the prices of ALL goods up to almost twice what they are now. 

Can we afford this? I think not- certainly we should think twice about voting for anything where the proponents of this legislation feel the need to suppress the adverse report  that calls into question the very need for this bill. Suppressing dissent is something Communist China, or Iran might do.

It should never be done by this government. To do so is so wrong, that it is traitorous. 

And there is no good way to spin that.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

12 Responses to “But it’s A Dry Heat”

  1. Darrel says:

    BLK:” “Now, it has (belatedly) come out that a scientific study of a dissenting opinion was squashed by the EPA and the Administration>>

    Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly get any dumber. I skimmed the first half. I wasted that time, but nonetheless, it’s done now.

    I’ll roast you later. Going to see a band. Get some popcorn.

    Hint: read the preface.

    ps. God you’re dumb.

    • Blake says:

      You know D- you claim I am dumb, and call me an idiot, but you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to refute what I say. Why? If I am so inept, as you claim, why so scared of my arguments? Do you really need to hear yourself (or see yourself) so badly that you have diarrhea of the keyboard? Tourrette’s of the hands?
      There is some reason I cause your disproportional response to my comments.

  2. Darrel says:

    BLK: “a scientific study of a dissenting opinion was squashed by the EPA and the Administration…>>

    Okay, this idiotic high school level, “draft report” which contains errors so obvious it’s not even clear the buffoon who put it together even proof read the thing, has nothing, NO THING, to do with science. It’s junk. The same junk GW deniers have slapped together for years and then they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

    If you had even taken the time read the preface of this 98 page, cherry picked, cut and paste, high school project patched together from some desk jockey (economist) global warming denier at the EPA, you would know that this is one (or two) fools asking for help to do *a review* of the science. This article clearly is not that. It’s a hack work put together by someone who knows nothing of the science. And I say that, using only my credentials as a goat farmer (and one who has read quite a bit out the issue). The last sentence in the preface is the clue:

    “We would be happy to work with and assist anyone who might want to undertake such a serious review of the science.”

    They say this because they know that this “draft report” is no such “serious review of the science.” That’s why it was, and is, taken seriously, by no one.

    Well, except for you.

    Because, you are an idiot.

    Now. If you would like me to spank anything specific in the this 98 page piece of silliness, just ask. Say “Darrel, can you stop herding the goats for a bit and look at page XX, I think that point is concerning. What could be a rebuttal to this?”

    Bonus: Your link from Hinderaker says:

    “the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one.”

    This wins absurdity of the day (and the competition is stiff around here). The IPCC report was in fact the opposite of that. A crowing achievement of scientific work representing the work of thousands of scientists, and specifically NOT a political document. The politics is referred to separately in “Summary for Policymakers.”

    If you want to learn about the IPCC and this huge scientific endeavor, you might start with this easy to understand intro piece at wiki:


    Well lookie here, I could have saved myself some time. Turns out the climatologists at realclimate have already roasted this draft report to a cinder. Published four days ago. I should have investigated the authors, the source of the poop, first! So it’s from the “Friends of Science” The old astro-turf group started by Canadian and serial liar, Tim Ball! Oh the hours I have spent making fun of him. I should have recognized the smell. Some things never change.

    It’s all nicely sliced and diced here in this concise article, appropriately entitled: Bubkes.

    Now there’s a word you don’t hear everyday.

    Here’s what the dictionary says it means:


    Definition: absolutely nothing; something worthless


    “So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

    If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….”


    • Blake says:

      I’m glad you like the sound of your voice. I’ll stick with my assertion, since I have learned you actually despite your excessive verbosity, have little to nothing to contribute.
      Your “studies” are left- leaning, and duplicitous- your sole intent is to obscure the discussion, since it goes against those things you and your little “group” agree with, and if I was a psychologist, I might say that your verbiage indicates an insecure mind. Am I getting close to the heart of your situation?
      Remember, you can only begin to be helped if you take the first step and admit you have a problem.

    • Big Dog says:

      Are these scientists up to your standards or have you “roasted” them as well?
      Or this list of them who doubt GW?

      Or this:
      Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?” Canada Free Press

      • Darrel says:

        BIGD: Are these scientists up to your standards or have you “roasted” them as well?>>

        Why would I roast them? I don’t take them seriously and neither does anyone else. I am sure you didn’t notice (I did), that none of them are CLIMATOLOGISTS. You don’t ask a plumber to tune your piano and you don’t look to these fellows for accurate scientific information about the complex and very specialized science of climatology.

        BIGD: Or this list of them who doubt GW?>>

        This is more CRAP based upon the model of the Oregon Petition which I have roasted many many times. Including all of the other variants which clueless deniers continue to put together and pass around.
        If you had read past the headline at your link (I did), you would know it is filled with “scientists” who are not climatologists. Hell, if you had even read just THE SECOND sentence in the article *at your link* you would have known better than to cite it. To quote:

        “It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.”

        BIGD: [quote] “Professor Tim Patterson testified…”>>

        Yes, I have roasted Tim Patterson to a crisp on our forum, repeatedly. His training is in Biology, and Geology. On climate change, his head is up his arse and he is a prostitute/shill for deniers via the Friends_of_Science astro-turf group which I have written extensively about on our forum (they changed their name when busted for lying about their funding). He has no credibility whatsoever outside of his field of training, which has nothing to do with climate change. On GW he is a politically motivated, hack.

        To read a good synopsis of the sordid history of this cast of clowns, see the link above, or use the search engine on our forum.

        As I posted in August of 2006:

        “These people are ignorant. Well-meaning, but just plain ignorant,” fumed Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which represents 800 Canadian atmospheric and oceanic scientists and professionals.

        The Friends of Science are driven by ideology and some kind of a misplaced understanding of how the world works. Many are what you would call paleogeologists…

        None of them ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is so nonsensical it’s hardly worth discussing.”


    • Blake says:

      It is rather suspicious that the people pushing what ever the name du jour is today are the same people with a HEAVILY INVESTED INTEREST in screaming like chicken little- we have had scientists call it cooling in the 70s, warming in the 90s, and now, to cover all the bases, its “change”- that word may fit Hussein’s agenda. but the facts are still ambiguous, and the only consensus seems to be a financially based one.
      For years we have improved the quality of the air- I can tell- I grew up around Houston, and you used to be able to tell if you were within fifty miles of Houston because of the yellow haze. No more- the air is much cleaner, but the threat we face now will be from China and India, and there’s nothing we can do about that.
      So all we will accomplish is to make ourselves poorer at a time when we can hardly afford to do so.
      That’s how stupid this whole plan is.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “we have had scientists call it cooling in the 70s,”>>

        Oh, I found some new information on this so lets smack this favorite hobby horse of Blake’s yet, ONE more time:

        The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

        The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

        But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

        The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

        “A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”


        And that was 35+ years ago. We’ve learned quite a bit since then. So please update your (dis)information.


        • Blake says:

          Yes d- you have learned to “update” your disinformation- cooling, warming, change, whatever drives your agenda- and that’s the problem- you do not see past your side’s talking points, and if something comes up contrary to that, you brush it aside.

      • Greg Robie says:

        I note Darrel suggests stupidity of the prime authors of this blog. Personally I am continually in awe of the brilliance in the use of language to frame the conversation here. Even so, the threat to national security is and was global warming. But for heavily invested oil interests successful efforts to change that label to climate change, which is a scientifically meaningless term, there would not be confusion about the threat we face. Again, personally, I have switched to klimakatastrophe, the German 2007 word-of-the-year, as at least in Germany it communicates, with a single shared term, all the threats to security that are faced. I use it because the current science and the trends in the science suggest we have passed tipping points already. I’ve concluded this as there is about a 30 year lag between passing a tipping point and getting the point of it (pun attempted—lame, I know)). I feel ACES is nothing more than a jobs bill and more handouts for Wall Street.

        You are correct that there remains ambiguity in the science. The synthesis report I’ve linked to in other comments categorizes that lack of surety at 10%. That leaves the veracity of the facts and the threat at 90%. Isn’t it government’s constitutional responsibility to act concerning a national threat with such a probability of being realized? Pointing out reasons for the 10% ambiguity’s validity amounts to little more than agreeing with what has been reported on, while being in denial of the other 90%. BTW, are you aware that the League of Conservative voter supported ACES, flaws and all?

        I live in the Hudson Valley on the side of the Hudson Highlands. I can concur regarding the improvement in air quality. I can remember how quick the clean Canadian air filled up with pollution when it rolled in, After one day the Catskills were obscured, the second day the ‘Gunks disappeared, and by the third or fourth it was hard to see Newburgh, 10 miles away. Thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1970, 1977, we both experience clearer air.

        As an aside I still cannot safely eat freshwater fish as I once did due to mercury levels in them. This condition is caused by Ohio coal burning power plants avoiding the legislative intent of the Clean Air Act and dumping their pollution out of stacks so tall that the lakes from Ohio to Maine are affected. State attorney generals here in the northeast have cooperatively sued the EPA to have the Act enforced as intended only to have new regulations created by executive order to again avoid the clean up. Ironically ACES will again strip the EPA of court enforced powers.

        The appearance of the Asian Brown Cloud you reference has its origins with our Clean Air Act. Maine used to be known for shoes, Newburgh used to make pocketbooks. “Made in the Far East/Not in the USA” _IS_ something we did. We’re still (at least until recently) buying the sneaker and pocketbooks from the industries that went East (and took the pollution with them) to avoided the Clean Air Act.

        As a blue collar worker, you are right about the US being poorer relative to jobs and their pay. Wall Street, however, is richer. So who is the “we the people” of the Federal Government, Main Street or Wall Street? Doesn’t the Federal Government tend to Wall Street first? If so, to set ourselves free, don’t we first have to reclaim the Constitutional power the Constitution gives to Congress back from Wall Street . . . or do we will only get poorer and pretend this is not the case? To do the latter would certainly be stupid.

        Anyway, can I trouble you for some links to blog posts here that layout a systemically better plan that what I have framed with the four Constitutional crises that need redressing should we are serious about protecting and defending the Constitution with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

        • Blake says:

          Greg- I have never said that there was NO threat to climate, or that man could , and did alter his environment- I have been against this bill because, a)- this bill does nothing substantially, b)- this wastes our money by putting the emphasis in the wrong places i.e. other people’s “selected” green industries, and c)- the money we the people will need to pay for it with is money we do not have, and while there is still good work to be done with regard to the earth, the time is not now.
          We, as a nation, need to operate from a position of strength- and we cannot now do this. To try this, on top of all else we have on our plate is, I believe, operating without common sense.