Posted on 06/04/2002 2:18:54 PM PDT by ZGuy
Report Relying On Discredited Science Previously Disavowed As Official Policy
Washington, D.C.,
The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on global warming to the United Nations, Climate Action Report 2002, violates an agreement between the White House and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, three members of Congress, and other non-profit advocacy groups, struck in settlement of a lawsuit. The report relies in part on the discredited National Assessment on Climate Change.
As a result of the lawsuit filed in October 2000, the Bush Administration ultimately agreed in September 2001 to withdraw the National Assessment and stated that its unlawfully produced conclusions are “not policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government.” EPA has ignored this agreement in issuing its report to the United Nations.
“Through Freedom of Information Act inquiries, we learned that the National Assessment was hurriedly slapped together in an incomplete and inaccurate form,” said Christopher C. Horner, CEI counsel who filed the lawsuit. “The current Climate Action Report inappropriately cites the disgraced National Assessment, in clear violation of the spirit and letter of our agreement with the White House in return for withdrawing our suit.”
Adds Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at CEI: “The Administration has recognized that the National Assessment is the worst sort of junk science. For the EPA now to accept the National Assessment’s findings as valid undermines and contradicts President Bush’s global warming policies. The EPA needs to be told that the Clinton Administration is gone and Al Gore did not win the election.”
The lawsuit against the White House’s flawed climate science was brought jointly by CEI, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Representatives Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), and other non-profit advocacy groups. CEI’s pleadings in the case can be found in the docket at the federal District Court for the District of Columbia (CV 00-02383).
In the meantime if we could do what I have suggested (we have some good fed employees on FR, and many have said that my way is the only to clear out the dead wood and the rat cancers), it would be a big and proper movement.
The strongest unions for the Rats are the federal unions for fed employees. I would love to see them waste millions of $'s in courts trying to get people hired back if my plan was use. That would weaken the rats even more.
Then, you nailed it. Most of the agencies might have a short term need. They should be funded and then defunded when that need is managed or is gone. Now once they become a federal agency, they have eternal life.
Last but not least most of these jobs should go to independent contractors with no benefits nor long term contracts. They contract for X work, and they do it and move to the next job or wait until one comes up.
The only fly I see in the ointment there is that it would give the next Rat administration a free hand to clear out anyone who would potentially stand in the way of turning the federal government into a subsidiary of the DNC. Basically it's going to turn civil service jobs into political spoils, and that sword can cut both ways.
That's where some kind of insurmountable limit on budgets and authority would come in. Such limits would aid truly conservative administrations in shrinking the monster, while hindering the National Socialists when they, regrettably, are temporarily in office. Plus it would give conservative administrations some cover when fighting with those who would like to grow the department, by saying "Shucks, I'd like to turn the department into a branch office of the DNC like you're asking, with the power to summarily execute conservatives, but regulation 53-48XYZ forbids it."
It would probably be a safe bet that most of the EPA, forest service, interior, blm people from GS7 and up are card carrying/dues paying Club Sierra people. Then, on our tax $'s they get paid, have office spaces, suvs and expense accounts to initiate, set up, install and enforce Club Sierra rural cleansing and other enviral nazi rules/laws or one way agreements.
That's why I think we need to get away from using the "blank check" Commerce Clause, and start specifically authorizing these agencies by amendment. That's the only kind of insurmountable limit Congress will understand.
A fellow who helped to clean up a big mess in the state of California, feels that both of our plans are needed.
Then, we need a way via the internet to make sure that whomever is in charge of a department/agencuy does not start inflating budgets and hiring more people to have more budget $'s and power. When a rat or conservative gets caught doing things like this, he/she/it get dragged out into the spotlight on the internet for exposure. In election years, his Rat or conservative boss would probably have to fire him.
Perfect, no, but as least we would have some control and ways to remove the bad people like these clymers at EPA.
Then I'll say it for you...
The EPA should not exist!!!
I wouldn't mind a bit if we just got rid of the damned thing, it's been abused so much.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
That's where the impenetrable budget cap comes in. The authorizing legislation (or amendment) would state an irrevocable limit on funding, thereby indiretly limiting the power of the department. The more of OUR MONEY they have, the more trouble they can get into.
Each generation that accepts them takes the next generation further away from the protections provided by our Constitution.
Until the day is reached that "american's" accept the un constitution as their own.And believe the lies that say our Constitution is outdated and useless.
It is anything but that and deserves our protection for future generations of our own Families.
It is the only document that protects our basic human Rights. It is the only thing between us and world rule and why the government must convince us that it doesn't have a purpose today.
It has the purpose today that it was meant to have, and will have the same purpose in 300 more years. To protect us from TYRANNY.
What will you do when the epa says your house is a danger to the environment and must be torn down. Seeings how it is useless, it will also be worthless.
Your payments on that house represent your "life", the time You have worked in order to achieve the things you "had" a Right to have.
Or what will You do if the government decides you have had enough children, and oops another one is on the way. To some the answer would be easy, murdering babies has already been declared and accepted as a womans right. But what if You are the person that wants to keep and raise that child. Do you really believe in a world enviroment where genocide is considered an option that your children can't be torn from your arms and drowned in a river like in China, our ally.
I mean you wouldn't or I should say couldn't question the governments motives. You would be dealt with as a dissident (I won't go back to Colonial days, but you get the drift).
Somebody help me, what do people look at as goals in their life anymore? It can't be being free to make choices in their lives and providing for their children so they can have a better life.
It must be that pat on the back the employer gives them, that makes them feel worthwhile.
How would the unions play into this? Wouldn't they whine seniority and such? Just for example, because I'd like to get a better understanding, say a dem president was elected. What's to prevent him from rehiring the sleeze that was eliminated from the previous administration? Maybe a clause, if you resign, you can never work for that department again.
"Then, we could apply your standards: Like undoing the absurd promotion to cabinet level. Add some serious accountability, like if you publish something without proper scientific rigor, you're automatically out the door, and maybe in jail, depending on how blatant. Like mandatory cost-of-implementation and cost-per-life-saved assesments that can't be sneaked around. Like a cap on department budget, not to exceed 0.001% of last year's GDP, etc."
I'd like to see simiilar accountibilty applied to these departments as in business. Submit your budget and have quarterly reviews. If you are over your budget, there had better be cut backs. I'd also like to see public published employee reviews.
"This dual sword could be used in all federal departments to massively weed out and selectively weed out the Rat mantra/agenda pushers."
Remember this plan would also apply to a liberal administration.
"To make it fair, GW could ask for this bill in his state of union address. Congress could pass it the next day and require that all federal employees send their letter of resignation to GW. Then immediately your performance standards would be set into action. "
You have more faith in congress than I do. I don't think congress would pass this without a fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.