SF Examiner Columnist Cajoled into Redacting Own Article after EPA Responds to Criticism They Suppressed Information

By Tom Richard, Climate Change Fraud
epa_logo_1 Thomas Fuller, noted global warming critic (not skeptic) and a “Lib Dem”, whose philosophy is that alarmists are making a climate-change mountain out of a spring-shower molehill, published an article yesterday that apparently got the EPA’s dander up. The article, first reported by CEI, revealed how the EPA was suppressing “relevant evidence when considering whether or not to classify CO2 as a pollutant.” This is not surprising since the EPA is a political organization, its leader is appointed by the President, and they generally fall in line behind the administration’s agenda. In this case, the cap and trade tax. But to make the cap and trade tax easier for Congress to swallow, the EPA needed to relegate it as a pollutant. After Fuller called the EPA (by phone, no less!), they responded that the “suppressed evidence” was published on at least four occasions. They then go on to say they are trying to find out how to publish it. Yes, you read that correctly. The spin is in. Sadly, Fuller is one of the more common-sense voices in the global warming debate. Fuller, probably not familiar with the machinations of Washington, D.C., politics, was led down the road the EPA built just for him. And follow he did. He updates his article by not only redacting the entire piece, but chastising the CEI for making much ado about nothing.

I must say this does not sound like the big deal the CEI made of it, and I must particularly note how responsive and open the people I dealt with at the EPA were…If CEI did indeed play games with the skeptic community and we journalists covering that community, it will be their credibility in tatters.

Below you’ll find the EPA’s email response to Fuller that he also published, and in his own words, you can “draw your own conclusions.”

“This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this instance, certain opinions were expressed by an individual who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.” – EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy

The following is from user ‘Anonymous’ that was posted in the comment section after Fuller’s self-inflicted muzzling:

I work at EPA, I know the facts of what happened, the EPA is trying to spin its way out of this. McGartland put a muzzle on Dr. Carlin and he was instructed to by still senior officials. The facts will eventually come out, and they will not be pretty. I’d love to give my name, but I don’t want to have happen to me what has happened to Dr. Carlin.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *