- WEB EXCLUSIVE
- PE COFFEEHAUS
During much of the discussion that did take place, members do as they often do and quoted a variety of information sources that supported their points of view on the topic. Something that caught my attention was the wide disparity that came from supposedly respected sources. For example, most of the congressional members admit that our energy prices will increase as a result of this action. When asked how much, the President announced in a press conference that prices should only increase by about the "price of a postage stamp per day." That number comes from an EPA study that reported the increase should be in the range of $77 to $111 per year. However, during presentations, that number grew to over $3,000 as suggested by other government agencies and universities.
Actually, the higher number is closer to what Obama cited during his campaign speeches when he declared energy prices would likely skyrocket. The truth is likely somewhere in between but with such a large range, it is totally up in the air (pun intended).
Another, more disturbing, bit of news is starting to gather some momentum. It is reported in some sources that a senior research analyst was squashed when he raised concerns that decisions were being made on faulty or obsolete climate data. He had been doing his job for 38 years. Other sources are claiming that particular analyst is neither a climatologist nor a scientist. He is a research analyst and that would mean to me that he is used to analyzing available research to reach conclusions. His specialty is economics and it would also seem to me that he would have to have an understanding of how things fall into place in order to determine costs. He has been at it for a long time and that seems to add credibility to his credentials for me.
He and the partner he worked with to compile the report complained in it that he was not allowed sufficient time to really complete a proper study as the project was done in a rush. However, e-mails that were leaked to various news outlets are rather disturbing in their content. Here is an excerpt from an e-mail from Al McGartland according to CBS News.
"The administrator and the Administration have decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
So, what were his comments? Trying to find the report took some searching. Go to http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf. It is 98 pages but is easy to read.
After reading most of it, I read views about the report from those who obviously disagreed with him. I found it interesting as some news outlets simply reported what they found while the dissenters decided to take his words and rearrange them and add an adjective in certain places to try to demean the comments in the report. That is why I am listing the link to the report. You should decide for yourself.
The EPA has officially released statements that they did consider his report but that it was not relevant. However, statements such as your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision sounds a awful lot like minds were already made up and if you can't write something that agrees with us, it is useless. The IPCC report from the United Nations was similarly put together and that was not widely reported. There were a number of scientists that were involved with the study that were told their work did not conform to the final product and would not be included unless they changed the wording. Those scientists finally asked that their names be removed from the IPCC final report as they did not want to be connected to it. I suggest you take a few minutes to see for yourself what Mr. Carlin, senior research analyst, wrote.