Bad Dreams In The Night

A terrifying new concept has recently reemerged in the global climatology fight and the clarion call is heralded by a book that Zombie just read: The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.

So, let me get this straight… In the 1970′s, we were all going to freeze to death in a new ice age. In the 2000′s, we were going to be baked alive because of global warming. Now – old is new again and we are going to freeze to death once more. Oh, for crap’s sake, make up your minds, why don’t ya? More death, death, doom and death. How trite.

Just another ploy to spread global Marxism – we just HAVE TO do the following (rinse, repeat and gag):

· Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;

· Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;

· Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;

· Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;

· In general embrace all environmental causes.

Sound familiar? Al Gore rides again in perpetuity evidently and has mated in an unholy alliance with Cass Sunstein and Progressives worldwide to force us into one global collective hell. Not surprised in the least. Zombie’s view of the whole scenario says it best:

In order to weaken and eventually destroy the existing industrialized nations, we must devise an ecological “crisis” so severe that only voluntary economic suicide can solve it; and if this first crisis doesn’t materialize as planned, then devise another, and another, even if they flatly contradict our previous claims.

These elitists will not stop until they have a crisis that we all must submit to so they can have their way with us and grab the power and fortune they have dreamed of, while putting the riffraff worldwide in their place as subjugates once and for all. A New World Order of slaves and a ruling class – ride the Wayback Machine to medieval times, only on steroids with a heaping side of eugenics for all.

Read Zombie’s latest: The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era? Bad dreams in the night of a purposely created disaster/emergency to force Americans to their knees, haunts me on a nightly basis. You can only look at evil so long before it takes its toll.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – the NoisyRoom

Related:

Climatologists: Global Cooling on the Horizon

Signing Global Warming's Death Certificate

The Global Warning on Global Warming

Rino Gingrich is Done Before He Started

Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:

“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.

Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.

"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."

Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.

The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional.

The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states.

The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections.

Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S.

Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right.

Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States."
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law.

“In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …"
Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts.

Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday.

“He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success,” the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday.
“Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.”

The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich’s description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a “pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year."

The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges.”

The conservative website Red State said Gingrich “won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.”

Source: Newsmax

Add to this the devastating reminder of a commercial Newt Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi supporting climate change (global warming) legislation and in less than a week after announcing, Gingrich might as well take his chips and go home!

Video:  Nancy Pelosi And Newt Gingrich Commercial On Climate Change

This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

Don't forget Newt is soft on the borders as well, and then when you add on those who remember Newt’s infidelity issues and he’s got problems!

Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Can Somebody Say Global Warming?? Gore MIA During Blizzards~

AMBER ALERT: Al Gore MIA during blizzards
Glenn is very concerned because Al Gore has suddenly vanished from the public scene. It's almost like he's trying to lay low as the country is pounded with massive snowstorms, BUT he could have also been abducted by some deranged psycho. Speaking of deranged, check out this clip from MSNBC where a reporter explains that all the snow doesn't mean less global warming - it is proof of global warming. ( Transcript, Insider Audio) Ironically, President Obama picked this week to announce the formation of a new global warming bureaucracy within the Department of Commerce. The news conference announcing this new “climate service" had to be canceled due to our D.C. area blizzard.

How out of touch is the radical environmental movement that, sadly, has a deep hold on the Obama Administration?

The Department of Commerce news release announcing the new “climate service" actually said the following, "More and more Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards..."

There's more. The release, paid for with your tax dollars, goes on to say that "People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision making about VIRTUALLY ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVE)." (emphasis added)

This kind of out-of-touch left-wing extremism inspired us here at Americans for Prosperity to create a new video I think you'll find interesting CLICK HERE

But even worse, the Obama Administration, in pursuit of their radical environmental goals, is still pursuing a cap-and-trade agenda that will kill jobs, raise utility bills and gas prices and infringe on our freedoms.

For the last two years, we've fought their radical agenda tooth-and-nail with the help of folks like you. We've held over 80 “Hot Air Tour" balloon rallies from Bozeman, Montana to Jacksonville, Florida and from Little Rock, Arkansas to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to raise awareness of the Left's cap-and-trade energy tax and to get activists to call and email their Senators and Congressmen to vote against it. CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THESE RALLIES AND OUR EFFORT

Despite the fact that a Pew Foundation poll showed Americans rank "combating global warming" dead last on their list of priorities, President Obama used his recent State of the Union speech to once again demand passage of his cap-and-trade legislation. They even wrote a blank line in the federal budget labeled "allowance for climate policy" to keep secret how much they plan to tax and spend via cap-and-trade. So, the cap-and-trade fight is not over.

Even worse, Obama is not waiting for Congress. The president is now intent on using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bypass Congress and move full steam ahead to enforce the Left's global warming agenda.

Soon after President Obama's election, this un-elected bureaucracy issued a "finding" that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare and therefore should be regulated by the EPA. Now, the EPA is moving to impose job-killing, freedom-encroaching regulations and mandates on American businesses - at a time when our economy is desperately struggling to create jobs and rebuild prosperity. Over 40,000 AFP activists put official comments in at the EPA on this issue. But to win, we will have to convince Congress to step in and stop the EPA.

Fortunately, there are now serious bipartisan efforts underway in both the House and Senate to do just that - block the EPA's outrageous global warming power grab and return the power to make our country's laws to Congress. At Americans for Prosperity, we're going to be announcing in the near future an intensive effort to combat this job killing EPA power grab. So stay tuned! In the meantime, please take a moment to click here and let your members of Congress know that if they fail to stop the EPA, you will hold them responsible for the consequences.

I hope you’re safe and sound at home if you live in the path of this storm. And you can just look out in your "backyard" for the devastating "impacts" of climate change (that’s what global warming is apparently called during blizzards!).

Tim Phillips – Americans for Prosperity

Related Posts on Global Warming… Get out the hot cocoa and sit in front of the fire, in most of the US, this is the right week so wade through all these links…

EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Declaration

Global Warming Hoax Part II

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

Charles Krauthammer Video… on the Blackmail RE: Carbon Dioxide and the EPA!

Climategate – Hide the Decline

But have no fear… even though they are missing in action as the US is buried in snow… Kerry and Gore plow forward

Snow Job? Gore & Kerry Pushing Climate Change Bill Despite Blizzard

Kerry: 'Dead Wrong' to Write Obit on Climate Change Bill

D.C. Blizzard: More Proof of Global Warming!

Gore Due in Phillippines for Climate Change Talk

Climate Change Legislation Buried Under Record Snowfall

TIME: Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse

Conservatives Use 'Snowmageddon' to Mock Global Warming

NBC Blames Snowpocalyse on Global Warming – Video

Senator Inhofe’s Family Built an Igloo for Al Gore

No More Green Guilt

Every investment prospectus warns that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But suppose that an investment professional's record contains nothing but losses, of failed prediction after failed prediction. Who would still entrust that investor with his money?

Yet, in public policy there is one group with a dismal track record that Americans never seem to tire of supporting. We invest heavily in its spurious predictions, suffer devastating losses, and react by investing even more, never seeming to learn from the experience. The group I’m talking about is the environmentalist movement.

Consider their track record—like the dire warnings of catastrophic over-population. Our unchecked consumption, we were told, was depleting the earth's resources and would wipe humanity out in a massive population crash. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, forecasted hundreds of millions of deaths per year throughout the 1970s, to be averted, he insisted, only by mass population control "by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."

But instead of global-scale famine and death, the 1970s witnessed an agricultural revolution. Despite a near-doubling of world population, food production continues to grow as technological innovation creates more and more food on each acre of farmland. The U.S., which has seen its population grow from 200 to 300 million, is more concerned about rampant obesity than a shortage of food.

The Alar scare in 1989 is another great example. The NRDC, an environmentalist lobby group, engineered media frenzy over the baseless assertion that Alar, an apple ripening agent, posed a cancer threat. The ensuing panic cost the apple industry over $200 million dollars, and Alar was pulled from the market even though it was a perfectly safe and value-adding product.

Or consider the campaign against the insecticide DDT, beginning with Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. The world had been on the brink of eradicating malaria using DDT—but for Carson and her followers, controlling disease-carrying mosquitoes was an arrogant act of "tampering" with nature. Carson issued dire warnings that nature was "capable of striking back in unexpected ways" unless people showed more "humility before [its] vast forces." She asserted, baselessly, that among other things DDT would cause a cancer epidemic. Her book led to such a public outcry that, despite its life-saving benefits and mountains of scientific evidence supporting its continued use, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. Thanks to environmentalist opposition, DDT was almost completely phased out worldwide. And while there is still zero evidence of a DDT cancer risk, the resurgence of malaria needlessly kills over a million people a year.

Time and time again, the supposedly scientific claims of environmentalists have proven to be pseudo-scientific nonsense, and the Ehrlichs and Carsons of the world have proven to be the Bernard Madoffs of science. Yet Americans have ignored the evidence and have instead invested in their claims—accepting the blame for unproven disasters and backing coercive, harmful "solutions."

Today, of course, the Green doomsday prediction is for catastrophic global warming to destroy the planet—something that environmentalists have pushed since at least the early 1970s, when they were also worried about a possible global cooling shifting the planet into a new ice age.

But in this instance, just as with Alar, DDT, and the population explosion, the science is weak and the "solutions" drastic. We are told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, yet global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes, yet the data doesn’t support such a claim. We are warned of a potentially catastrophic sea level rise of 20 feet over the next century, but that requires significant melting of the land-based ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Greenland has retained its ice sheet for over 100,000 years despite wide-ranging temperatures and Antarctica has been cooling moderately for the last half-century.

Through these distortions of science we are again being harangued to support coercive policies. We are told that our energy consumption is destroying the planet and that we must drastically reduce our carbon emissions immediately. Never mind that energy use is an indispensable component of everything we do, that 85 percent of the world's energy is carbon-based, or that there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon, and that billions of people are suffering today from lack of energy.

Despite all of that, Americans seem to once again be moving closer to buying the Green investment pitch and backing destructive Green policies. Why don't we learn from past experience? Do you think a former Madoff investor would hand over money to him again?

It's not that we're too stupid to learn, it's that we are holding onto a premise that distorts our understanding of reality. Americans are the most successful individuals in history - even in spite of this economic downturn - in terms of material wealth and the quality of life and happiness it brings. We are heirs to the scientific and industrial revolutions, which have increased life expectancy from 30 years to 80 and improved human life in countless, extraordinary ways. Through our ingenuity and productive effort, we have achieved an unprecedented prosperity by reshaping nature to serve our needs. Yet we have always regarded this productivity and prosperity with a certain degree of moral suspicion. The Judeo-Christian ethic of guilt and self-sacrifice leads us to doubt the propriety of our success and makes us susceptible to claims that we will ultimately face punishment for our selfishness--that our prosperity is sinful and can lead only to an apocalyptic judgment day.

Environmentalism preys on our moral unease and fishes around for doomsday scenarios. If our ever-increasing population or life-enhancing chemicals have not brought about the apocalypse, then it must be our use of fossil fuels that will. Despite the colossal failures of past Green predictions, we buy into the latest doomsday scare because, on some level, we have accepted an undeserved guilt. We lack the moral self-assertiveness to regard our own success as virtuous; we think we deserve punishment.

It is time to stop apologizing for prosperity. We must reject the unwarranted fears spread by Green ideology by rejecting unearned guilt. Instead of meekly accepting condemnation for our capacity to live, we should proudly embrace our unparalleled ability to alter nature for our own benefit as the highest of virtues.

Let’s stop wallowing in Green guilt. It’s time to recapture our Founding Fathers' admiration for the pursuit of each individual's own happiness.

**************

Source: Fushion Magazine Preview Article

By Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights is located in Washington, DC. It is a Division of the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to advance Ayn Rand's ideas. To learn more go to www.aynrand.org

Source: KnowledgeCreatesPower

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

• Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype
• Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Supressed’ Climate Change Report
• Energy Czar Has Not Read Climate Bill Either & Boehner Say Bill Is Pile of S__t!
• Congressman Requests Moment of Silence for Jobs Lot From Cap…
• Stifling Science To ‘Fight Warming
• Video: Obama: My Cap-and-Trade Plan Will Make Electricity Rates 'Skyrocket' | The FOX Nation"’
• Green Hell
• Red Hot Lies

Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

(Photo: UCLA Shutterbug - New Hampshire Jan 2009)

Lawmakers who described the alleged effects of global warming are spreading a lot of "eye wash," a top climate scientist says.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, S. Fred Singer, a renowned climatologist and professor of environmental sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia, discussed the background behind the recent open letter to Congress he and six other scientists sent to members of the House and Senate.

In the letter, the scientists cited a letter sent by the Woods Hole Research Center, which exhorted Congress to act quickly to avoid a global disaster due to alleged global warming.

Singer said the Woods Hole group “put on a sort of scary exaggerated kind of letter to Congress ahead of the vote in the House in an obvious attempt to stampede them into voting for the Waxman-Markey [cap and trade environmental] bill.

Singer explained: “We thought it would be useful to write a letter that would provide a balance. The instigator of the letter was Harold Lewis, a retired professor of physics at the University of California in Santa Barbara.” Lewis, he said, “provided the initial draft, several of us made comments and seven of us signed our names to it."

Lewis sent the letter "to every member of Congress ... and it was also sent to a number of bloggers and others who are generally sympathetic" to the group’s point of view.

“The letter itself is self-explanatory,” Singer said, noting that it did not “give much detail."

“Two of us, Richard Lindzen and myself, are actively working on climate issues. The others are renowned physicists – people of some stature, members of the National Academy and others who have a good amount of scientific judgment but who have not directly published or been pre-eminent in climate research.”

Asked if it is not established that the earth is cooling, Singer explained that “The earth is either always warming or cooling; one cannot tell which it is unless one specifies the time interval.

“It's like the stock market: it is rising or falling. Both depend on whether it's a week or a month or a year. It's the same with the temperature – if we start during the last Ice Age 15,000 years ago, then the temperatures have warmed. If you start from the Little Ice Age, which ended 200 years ago, it certainly has warmed.

“If you start from 1998, however, then it has not warmed – it has cooled. So it depends on the time interval. People argue about this, and much of the difference between groups comes about when you don't specify the time interval. There's no question that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years."

Reminded that there were members of Congress standing up in the debate and talking about the terrible things that are happening now as a result of global warming, Singer said: “That's all eye wash. That's not true. That's simply hype.”

He went on to explain that “Nothing untoward is happening. The ice is not melting any faster, the sea level is not rising any faster. Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency; there's been no impact. Those things are always hard to measure. It depends on statistics. The easiest thing is to specify temperature, because it's easily measured and there is relatively little disagreement on what temperature stands for.”

He then went on to challenge what he called former Vice President Al Gore’s “mantra” that he says Gore’s "been handing out for years now – that the science is settled. That is simply not true.

“When you have 31,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition saying they disagree with the current wisdom that humans are producing increased warming, it speaks for itself. It's true that the 31,000 are not all climate scientists. There are not that many in the world.

“However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

“The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those – sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists – who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult – the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

“When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, ‘Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'”

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

Friday, July 3, 2009 10:17 PM
By: Phil Brennan - 2009 Newsmax

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

• No More Green Guilt
• Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Supressed’ Climate Change Report
• Energy Czar Has Not Read Climate Bill Either & Boehner Say Bill Is Pile of S__t!
• Congressman Requests Moment of Silence for Jobs Lot From Cap…
• Stifling Science To ‘Fight Warming
• Video: Obama: My Cap-and-Trade Plan Will Make Electricity Rates 'Skyrocket' | The FOX Nation"’
• Green Hell
• Red Hot Lies

Senator Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Administration Buried Report Questioning Global Warming

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.

EPA analyst Alan Carlin raised questions about the impact of global warming on areas like Greenland. Shown here is an iceberg off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. (AP Photo)

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects."

"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress.

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."

"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration -- only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhousegases.

By Judson Berger - FOXNews.com

Click here to read Carlin's report.

FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources: