Opinion

[Print] [Email]

CEI releases global warming study censored by Obama's EPA

By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
06/26/09 12:09 PM EDT

Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released today as Congress prepares to vote on global warming legislation.

Internal email messages show the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed the report and silenced the author because the scientific evidence did not square with the Obama administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide, CEI claims. The EPA has become overly reliant upon outdated information from the United Nations and has ignored major new scientific developments, the censored study concludes.

“While we hoped that the EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency, since she took office,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report.

Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature.

Going forward, CEI has called upon the EPA to independently analyze the science and to become more transparent in its own reporting.

Follow The Examiner

White House keeps Fort Hood probe in the family

Call it what you like -- it deserves a complete investigation. (afp) Any reporter worth their salt knows that when government decides to investigate itself, exonerations tend...

—Julie Mason

Stimulus Map Update: Obama's snake-handlers

Where is your stimulus money going? In Baker City, Ore., the Bureau of Land Management is putting $256,000 of it toward "rattlesnake stewardship." It's the latest...

—David Freddoso

Rich people need FHA loans, too

So let me get this straight, the government created the housing market crash by insuring a lot of really expensive, little-to-no money down mortgages for people that couldn't...

—Mark Hemingway

ACORN got sub-grants from DOJ

Although the Department of Justice is not yet investigating the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), its Inspector General has looked into whether...

—David Freddoso

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

bbb

Jun 26, 2009

I would LOVE to see one member of Congress who votes for this bill (a.k.a. Democrats) actually have the knowledge to draw a carbon dioxide molecule, or an ozone ion, or well, ANYTHING actually on a 7th grade level science (9th grade if one is in remedial science). Don't think Gore could do it, but that's not required of Hollywood, or the Nobel Prize, to actually know and understand something.

Mike Smith

Jun 26, 2009

Kevin Mooney, are you aware of the background of CEI (its funders and its aims?). Either you don't, in which case you should research your sources more, or you do in which case you should have not put their spin on your article. Either way, you clearly aren't capable of journalism, as either error is inexcusable.

Richard H.

Jun 26, 2009

I've read the paper/draft released by the CEI. It's interesting that it was censored because it's written in a way that seems to be in the best interest of the EPA. Sure it questions the belief that all global warming is man made, and questions our full understanding of the principals involved. But it's also written in a way to say "Hey! we need to cover our tails on this." Items like "We need to understand XXX better because if we don't and it proves to be wrong the EPA will take the blame not the IPCC"

Hank

Jun 26, 2009

Mike Smith, Yours is the same old lame talking point that clouds any furthering of the science or discussion on anthropogenic global warming - the skeptics are in the tank with big oil and the proponents are in the tank with liberal politicians. Journalism is about bringing the story to the public, not about being a scientist trained in all fields nor checking out every reference in the report (which are mostly valid sources by the way). The reality is there is new "peer reviewed" science that is gaining attention that contradicts some of the underpinnings of the AGW hypothesis. At a time when the science is the deciding factor in tremendously expensive political decisions, it only makes sense to me that the newer science needs to be considered. That's all Mooney is saying. To say that the new science has arrived too late to make its contribution to our understanding of global warming is foolish in this context.

Pitt

Jun 26, 2009

AH.....thankfully Lord Obama, the most merciful, has seen fit to re-introduce "science" into policy making. /sarcasm off/ Apparently, it's OK to exclude any science that is in contradiction to liberal orthodoxy.

Pitt

Jun 26, 2009

Stacy

Jun 26, 2009

Mike Smith, refute the data, if you can. You attack CEI which is bringing attention to the fact that an EPA administrator attempted to suppress scientific data because it would "damage" the Obama administration policy on climate change. In other words, yet again Obama says one thing and does another - science is taking a back seat to ideology, even though he said the Obama Era would be science above ideology. Obama loves himself and his party more than his country or its principles. November 2010 cannot come soon enough - time to make Obama a lame duck. Transparency. Ha!

Alfred J. Lemire

Jun 27, 2009

I took journalism courses at Maryland in College Park and worked nearly seven years as a newspaper reporter. Mr. Smith errs. Mr. Mooney reported the facts & did not put "their [CEI's] spin" on his article. One can dispute the findings and the claim of an "emerging consensus" re: hurricanes, but Mr. Mooney reported that which he has observed. Mr. Smith wanted Mr. Mooney to reference and presumably catgorize the CEI's funders and aims, displacing relevant facts in the 235-word article. The facts and the science referenced in the suppressed EPA report matter to an analysis of climate patterns and public policy decisions, not who supports the work of the CEI.

Alfred J. Lemire

Jun 27, 2009

And "catgorize" should have been "categorize." I do make typos from time to time. I wrote and edited too quickly. And Mr. Smith's criticism brings to mind a David Espo AP report last September in Colorado on a Sarah Palin speech. His fourth paragraph started with, "[i]n fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center" and went on to cite one of its findings that four out of five U.S. households would get tax cuts through an Obama proposal. The Tax Policy Center is affiliated with the Brookings Institution. Independent? Well, perhaps of direct government control, but it has a point of view. And funders. And I'm waiting for my tax cut. Mr. Smith should take a closer look at what the AP does in its reports. Mr. Espo did what he could to refute Gov. Palin’s claims in a report on her speech, something I never saw in AP reports on Obama. Mr. Espo is capable of journalism; so is Mr. Mooney.

Peter Williams

Jun 28, 2009

This is a fascinating time in which we live as we watch the great liberal experiments of our time pile great damage on top of the damage caused by the great liberal experiments of the past. Belief in idealized outcomes outweighs rational thought. This is how civilizations destroy themselves.

WeWon

Jun 28, 2009

Hey, We won. This means James Hansen can be arrested and stay on as a valued member of our team. It also means that heretics like these renegade EPA employees can be disciplined, be fired and banned from working in this important field. The planet and our Presidents reputation is too important to risk on anything less than draconian tactics. If a few people have to be sacrificed for our needs than so be it. WE WON!

WeWon

Jun 28, 2009

Mike Smith

Jun 28, 2009

(my last comment! maybe :P) Lemire said "Mr. Smith wanted Mr. Mooney to reference and presumably catgorize the CEI's funders and aims," no I didn't, although it might have been a good idea. It would have been better still to interview others around the story (e.g. climate scientists?) who would be able to say if the report is an important scoop, or a load of rubbish.

Mike Smith

Jun 28, 2009

To the newspaper: Did you have to censor my 2 other comments? I was replying to the other posters, and trying to explain the problems with the report.

Paul Lindsey

Jun 28, 2009

Could the CEI's actions bringing this quashed report and the associated emails to light be the reason that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership were so insistent on getting a vote on ACES on Friday?

Mike Smith

Jun 29, 2009

Stacy said, "Mike Smith, refute the data, if you can." I posted an extended comment twice, explaining the problems with the data. Both times it didn't make it onto this comments section. I'd ask that you go read www.realclimate.org where climate scientists are explaining the problems with the report. Thanks, Mike.

Sandy

Jun 29, 2009

Hopefully someone out there can answer this question. What human activity caused the oceans in the Southwestern part of the US (LV NV area is a good example) to become desert and the glaciers in the upper part of N. America to melt?

WW2 Vet

Jun 29, 2009

lets see how many of the liberal newsmedia will publish the findings of the CEI, Foxx news is one of the very few however that will keep you abrest of all the news. That is why Obama and his hebchmen are trying to run Fox off the air. Keep up your good newcasting Fox.

Michael

Jul 2, 2009

This story has been debunked as completely bogus. Amazing that nobody here has posted the conflict of interest between the CEI (supported by multiple energy interests) and the story itself. Hey, you flat-earth folks: there are over 1000 peer reviewed studies that support human-induced global warming. There are 0 peer reviewed studies that refute it. Get a life people.

Hey Michael

Jul 6, 2009

There is not a lot of money in non-human warming, is there? Debunked? Where and by whom?

Sports

FAI Chief Executive John Delaney speaks during a press conference at the Football Association of Ireland headquarters in Abbottstown, Dublin Thursday Nov. 19, 2009. Ireland failed to qualify for th...

Ireland gives up hope of getting World Cup replay with France over Thierry Henry's hand ball

Ireland has given up hope of a World Cup playoff replay against France because of Thierry Henry's hand ball. Full story

Politics

Democrats snare 60 votes to move forward on health care; Landrieu, Lincoln to vote 'yes'

Democratic leaders secured the last two votes to move ahead on historic health care legislation, clearing the way for a Saturday night showdown on President Barack Obama's top domestic initiative. Full story

Entertainment

Pedro Almodovar discusses his childhood, his influences and what he won't put on film

Sex. Drugs. Prostitution. Pedophilia. Rape. Pedro Almodovar has been able to translate some of the most delicate subjects to the big screen with grace and humor. Full story

CEI releases global warming study censored by Obama's EPA

By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
06/26/09 12:09 PM EDT