EPA Suppresses Report Disproving Global Warming

This is outrageous. I can’t believe that, with the house passing the Climate Change Bill on Friday, which will seek to curb CO₂ emissions, it has just come out that the EPA crushed a dissenting report on the supposed dangers of “Global Warming.” The report, titled Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (PDF), contains a full 98 double-spaced, 12-point-font pages minus 13 blank pages of scathing evidence disproving Global Warming. As we can clearly see from this selection of internal e-mails exchanged on the matter, the EPA suppressed this report, which could have extended debate on the Climate Change Bill, and by extension, inaction on Climate Change, just a little bit longer.

From the e-mails we can see the EPA had concerns about the report’s references, which one of the author’s, Alan Carlin, attempted to mitigate:

The authorship is clearly indicated on the last page. Actually, much of the non-observable material (ie. statements that do not involve interpretation of existing data) is actually in peer-reviewed literature somewhere and I have tried to reference everything.

If the fascist overlords at the EPA had only bothered to actually look at the report, they would have found references to the illustrious Friends of Science (FoS), who, thanks to massive funding from our paternal benefactors in the oil industry, is able to provide completely unbiased reporting on how wrong wrong wrong scientists are about Global Warming, especially about any attempt to get people to stop consuming so much oil. Compare this to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who must serve everyone in the world, making them far more biased in their findings. FoS only has to answer to one organization, IPCC has to answer to everyone; if we count the oil industry as one person, as American Corporate law does, then the IPCC is 6.9 Billion times as biased as the FoS.

Additionally, the report references the blog What’s Up With That?, which argues that this is all because of fluctuations in the Sun, and also counts as a peer-reviewed journal, since it is a journaling medium and the commenters are peers because they have the same lack of credentials as the blog’s author. Even more additionally, the author’s reference Theodore Landscheidt, who’s research has attributed the recent warming trend to solar cycles, and whose breakthrough work in the field of Astrology determined that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were also the result of a “fractal pattern in the Sun’s dynamics.” How many astrologers does the IPCC reference? Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. That’s because they are fascists just like Hitler, who, unlike Hitler, don’t consult astrologers, palm and tea leaf readers in making their predictions. Buncha Jerks.

But let’s just deal with facts by themselves, which is the best evidence for why Global Warming is a sham. As we can see in the below graphic, which the report references with an APA citation that reads: “Source?”¹ and is referenced in numerous articles all over the Interwebs (See here, here, and here.), we can see a clear cooling trend over the last decade:

Global Cooling Graph

While many websites refer to this data as “a decade,”² this report exhibits a sophisticated level of scientific scrupulosity by referring to the dataset as “the 2000s,” which, as everyone knows, does not include the year 2000 itself, because we start counting at the number 1, not 0, and does not include the year 2001 just because. Meanwhile, the enviro-psychos try to swamp ordinary Americans with their cherry-picked data, just like how they cherry-picked the data to include the last 150 years of temperature measurements to show a warming trend. You can clearly see just how the enviro-fanatics are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by overloading them with data in the below graph:

Warming Trend Based on Cherry-Picked Data

I’ve highlighted the selection of data showing the 2002 to 2008 measurements, which clearly shows a cooling trend. 2000 and 2001 are highlighted blue. Academics and bookworm losers who want us to include those two years are trying to manipulate the data to show a warming trend because they’re so dishonest and stuff:

Global Warming Detail

But you know what? Our data comes from the article Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Volume 37, No.3 publication of Physics & Society, July 2008, a peer-reviewed journal. Got that? All you science-focused, enviro-fascists can suck it. Although Alan Carlin wasn’t able to find the peer-reviewed journal sources, I was, and the journal even mentions just how peer-reviewed this article is in bright red text just above its title³:

This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

Isn’t that just like the oppressive elitist Academic regime to write something so hurtful? Academia likes to pick on people who are different. That kid who used to beat you up on the playground and kick sand in your face at the beach? He grew up to be a climate scientist. Are we going to let these eggheads dictate American public policy? Or are we going to stand up to them, do what’s right, and base public policy on emotive appeals, logical fallacies, and a complete lack of empirical evidence?

¹ See page 53 of the PDF.

² Some of you may wonder why a decade of global cooling evidence only includes 6.5 years of data. That’s just because some of you don’t understand basic math and the concept of rounding. People who use this graph are applying the technique of rounding to the number of years of data so that it simplifies to the nearest whole number power of ten, and thus, 6.5 years becomes 10 years so that the average American, who doesn’t understand the immense complexity of decimal places one’s places

³ In all fairness, the final version of the publication had much less damning language; although, it said essentially the same thing.

Note: For a legitimate and more mature debunking of this absolute joke of a report, please see RealClimate’s article Bubkes.