The EPA, which was essentially weaponized against American businesses, corporations and industries during the Obama administration, has been handed orders by President Donald J. Trump to stop using social media and to end any attempts to sign new contracts.

As reported by Zero Hedge, the administration placed a media blackout on the agency, prohibiting the use of social media or having any contact with the media. Presumably, this means that any EPA official who leaks information to the media – which you know is going to happen – will run foul of the new order. It’s not clear what will happen to violators if they are identified.

Emails that agency chiefs sent to staff since Trump’s inauguration on Friday, which were reviewed by The Associated Press, provided details on specific behaviors that are no longer allowed: The issuing of press releases, blog updates and posts to the EPA’s social media accounts.

On Monday, meanwhile, The Hill, citing multiple reports, said the agency’s grants have been frozen, with agency employees barred even from discussing the matter (which means that the order has already been violated).

The grants fund a number of things including clean-up of toxic sites, the monitoring of air quality, water testing and other functions of the agency that are generally too few and far between to really be of much value. Even when the EPA knew about poor water quality, as was the case in Flint, Michigan, recently, it did nothing to intervene, claiming that the state agency should have done so.

Myron Ebell, who was in charge of the EPA transition for Trump, confirmed the “basics of the freeze” to Pro Publica Monday evening.

“They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first,” Ebell said.

It is not clear whether the freeze is indefinite or if it is only a temporary way to sort of slow things down at the agency until Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee to run the EPA, is confirmed by the Senate – a process which is taking far longer, thanks to Democratic delays, than it did for President Obama in 2009.

Ebell said that while the current order may be “a little wider” than previous ones, earlier administrations have issued similar instructions.

“Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments,” one EPA contracting officer wrote in a message to a storm water management employee, Pro Publica reported.

Whatever the scope of the order, it is consistent with other executive actions that Trump has taken since he was sworn in. He’s also implemented a federal hiring freeze, and has instructed agencies tied to Obamacare to grant wide and generous waivers.

Also, Trump has silenced the EPA’s bogus proclamations on the climate change hoax. The agency was one of the primary tools used by Obama to push through a radical Left-wing environmental agenda that had nothing to do with sound “settled” science, but was really aimed at stifling American businesses and destroying jobs. (RELATED: What has Trump done to dismantle the bureaucracy today? Find out at BigGovernment.news)

“The EPA has been a constant purveyor of quack science propaganda pretending to be rooted in facts. It’s not only a great idea to muzzle this out-of-control corrupt agency; I think it’s time America shuttered the entire EPA and sent its employees packing,” said Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. “The EPA has done absolutely nothing to protect the American people in recent memory, and exists solely to serve the interests of corporate chemical pushers (such as pesticide companies), while pushing Al Gore’s wholly discredited climate change bunk.”

Follow more news about the EPA’s fake science at FakeScience.news.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

NaturalNews.com

ProPublica.org

Inaugurated in January 2009, the committee officially awarded Obama his prize in October of that year, proclaiming:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. [Emphasis added]

Zero accomplishment, just lots of potential. And remember, the selection process takes months, so this committee had to have been considering giving their prize to Obama practically the same time members found out he’d won the presidency. (RELATED: Keep up with all things phony at Hoax.news)

Until that point, peace prizes had been based on actual peacemaking accomplishments. Consider that Obama’s peace prize was awarded to him on the eve of his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, making the granting of the award “absurd,” according to Simon Heffer, writing in The Telegraph in October 2009. It’s an expansion that continues to this day.

There are more examples of absurdity in the awarding of this once-prestigious prize. In 2012, for example, the award was given to the European Union, despite a year which saw widespread violent protests against austerity measures, and the looming prospect of a very hostile break-up of the union (that hasn’t happened, but has now begun with Britain’s recent vote to leave the EU).

Again, as noted that same year by The Telegraph, “The shock decision by the Norwegian prize jury was greeted with disbelief and derision, but also with some relief by supporters of the European project.”

Some analysts saw the award as a shameless attempt to shore up the institution of the EU and its currency – the euro – in the alliance’s darkest hour. At the time, Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland warned of a potential return to the “extremism and nationalism” which led to two world wars beginning on the European continent in the 20^th century.

Again, no real accomplishments, but only the pretense of accomplishment – like giving a student an “A” for effort, rather than for their actual work.

In 2008, Left-wing Keynesian and “economist,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, won a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, with the committee claiming that the award was “for his analysis of trade patterns and economic activity.”

Krugman is like a broken record when it comes to his economic “prowess.” The way to fix everything in the economy is always more government spending, despite the fact that such spending has led to a nearly $20 trillion deficit under President Obama. (RELATED: When will our debt crush us? Stay current at Collapse.news)

There is also this: Krugman once actually recommended faking an alien invasion to get Obama’s economy going:

“It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget consideration took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops we made a mistake … There was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists faked an alien threat in order to produce world peace. This time we need to ignore it to get some fiscal stimulus.”

In fact, as noted by Michael Pento of Pento Portfolio Strategies, Krugman has never seen a government spending program he didn’t like, even when said government is neck-deep in debt.

It’s clear from these and other examples that whatever prestige and intent Nobel prizes used to convey once upon a time, they have now been politicized to the point of uselessness as just another attempt to legitimize Left-wing extremists.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

Kitco.com

MishTalk.com

NationalSecurity.news

In a meeting with business leaders in the White House on Monday, Trump’s first official full-day in office, the billionaire real estate mogul-turned politician said he thinks it is possible to cut three-quarters of all federal regulations, and “maybe more”—while still ensuring that Americans are safe and protected.

Seated with 10 executives from various industries and corporations, Trump was repeating a campaign pledge to roll back corporate mandates and rules that cost the economy trillions of dollars per year and an incalculable number of jobs and opportunities.

“We’re going to be cutting regulation massively,” Trump told reporters, while pledging to be “just as protective of the people.” Included in the meeting with CEOs were Elon Musk, head of Tesla Motors, and Kevin Plank, chief of Under Armor. (RELATED: Stay current with all of the Trump administration’s latest executive actions at Whitehouse.news)

Democrats and the angry Left they represent have been irrationally opposed to any of Trump’s plans to roll back the massive number of regulations on the books—so many and so complex that corporations have to hire teams of lawyers and experts to decipher them and ensure that their companies are not running afoul of some federal agency.

In a wide-ranging statement issued on Monday, the president also repeated a campaign promise to cut taxes on businesses by reducing corporate rates from some of the highest in the industrialized world—35 percent—to a more competitive 15-20 percent. He also said he wants to reward companies that make their products in the United States and impose a border levy on products that U.S. companies manufacture abroad.

As he said on the campaign trail, Trump reiterated his intention to push for U.S.-based manufacturing while renegotiating trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while adding that he is not against “free trade.” Also on Monday, Trump signed an executive action pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-national trade agreement he heavily criticized as more of the same kind of globalism that has disadvantaged U.S. companies and off-shored American jobs.

“What we want to do is bring manufacturing back to our country,” said Trump. “That doesn’t mean we don’t trade because we do trade. We want to make our products here.”

Following the meeting, Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris told reporters that the executives will return in 30 days with suggestions about how to boost American manufacturing. But so far, Trump’s already scored some wins for Americans hoping to keep their jobs. As reported by CNBC:

Trump’s administration has already negotiated a deal with United Technologies for its Carrier unit to keep some jobs in Indiana rather than move them to Mexico, in exchange for $7 million in incentives over several years. Still, the company plans to shut down another Indiana facility and move hundreds of jobs to Mexico.

As reported by BigGovernment.news following the Nov. 8 elections, Americans voted for Trump’s agenda to roll back government and bolster American jobs and manufacturing.

“Americans rejected Obamacare. They rejected Left-wing radicalism in the federal courts. They rejected higher costs for business. They rejected job-killing regulations that targeted entire industries. They rejected the one-size-fits-all approach of an overreaching federal bureaucracy,” the site reported. (RELATED: The Trump administration is putting liberty back in style, as noted at Freedom.news)

It’s obvious the companies that have decided to keep jobs and operations in the U.S. that they had previously planned to move off-shore believe that Trump, a billionaire businessman himself, and the GOP-controlled Congress will deliver on the kinds of regulatory relief most of them have long sought.

What’s also obvious is that a majority of Americans in a majority of states also believe that Trump was the best candidate—and Republicans the best party—to provide them with better opportunities in the years ahead.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

BigGovernment.news

NewsTarget.com

CNBC.com

As president, Trump’s position appears to be consistent with his skepticism.

Shortly after being inaugurated on Friday, the official Whitehouse.gov web site was scrubbed of all references to climate change. See the difference here.

During the Obama administration, the official White House site carried an information piece titled, “A Historic Commitment to Protecting the Environment and Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change,” which explained the former president’s commitment to policies that were ostensibly designed to reverse human impact on the climate through industrialization and modernization.

Obama, like all climate change hoaxers, claimed that it was the ‘biggest threat to our children’ than nuclear war or terrorism, and he regularly trotted out “data” that his federal bureaucracy claimed was “proof” that a) the Earth’s climate is “changing” and b) it’s because too many cows fart and too many Americans drive SUVs.

But Trump—and a host of genuinely independent scientists and climatologists interested in real data—has never bought into the hype. What’s more, he and millions of Americans watched as Obama’s business and economic policies destroyed jobs and opportunity because they were based on something more akin to a religion. (RELATED: How are ‘they’ fooling us today? Find out at Hoax.news)

“Climate skeptics are thrilled that one of the very first visible changes of the transition of power between President Obama and President Trump is the booting of ‘climate change’ from the White House website,” said a statement from Climate Depot, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, which documents climate change hoaxes and phony data. “Trump is truly going to make science great again and reject the notion that humans are the control knob of the climate and UN treaties and EPA regulations can somehow regulate temperature and storminess. Welcome to the era of sound science!”

While the Obama-era climate change page has been taken down, the Trump administration has uploaded the president’s “America First Energy Plan” to the Whitehouse.gov site in its place.

“Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil,” the plan says. “For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”

The plan also notes that “sound” energy policy must begin with the acknowledgement that the United States has vast, untapped energy reserves that have been placed under federal ‘protection’ for decades by previous administrations. The administration says it is committed to unlocking those reserves and embracing the shale oil and gas “revolution” that will bring good-paying jobs to millions of Americans. (RELATED: What’s going on with American energy? Find out at Power.news)

That kind of a policy plays right into the hands of the angry Left, which has claimed for months that Trump would destroy the environment by making our air and water dirtier. But such ridiculous claims are based on the irrational premise that our new president wants us to have dirty air and water—which is something he, too, would suffer.

The web site says there is an estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale in the U.S., along with oil, and natural gas, “especially those on federal lands that the American people own.” The administration would use the revenues from energy production to “rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure,” which Trump frequently brought up on the campaign trail. By tapping into U.S. reserves, energy prices will come down for all Americans, and “will be a big boost to American agriculture as well.”

The Trump administration also said it will be committed to clean coal technology, as well as reviving the coal industry so ravaged under the Obama regime.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

ClimateDepot.com

Breitbart.com

Whitehouse.gov

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was sued in 2014 by Murray Energy Corporation and its affiliates, alleging that the agency was in violation of sections of the Clean Air Act. The EPA was required to conduct continuous evaluations monitoring the potential loss of employment, resulting from enforced provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA also failed to applicably implement investigations on threatening plant closures, or employment reductions allegedly resulting from EPA enforcement efforts.

Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgement in 2016. But, on October 17, 2016, US District Judge John Preston Bailey denied the governments motion, and granted the motion of Murray Energy Corporation. The EPA lost the case and was ordered by Judge Baily to comply with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA was ordered to file a plan and schedule to comply with its effects on coal industry regulations within fourteen days of the order. The EPA responded with a filing stating that the agency doesn’t perform the economic assessments specified, and would need two years to devise and implement a methodical strategy to do so. Judge bailey was not impressed with the filing.

Federal regulators have now been ordered to assess how many power plant and coal mining jobs are being lost to air pollution regulations. Judge Bailey made the ruling in response to Gina McCarthy’s filing that the EPA hasn’t performed such analysis in decades. The outgoing EPA administrator, McCarthy, had no means to comply with the ruling in a timely manner. Jude Bailey found her response to be insufficient, unacceptable, and unnecessary. (RELATED: Discover more news about the environment at Enviro.news)

The EPA, like many federal agencies, is swift to bring criminal charges against unintentional violations of pollution laws, but it views its own compliance with the law as optional. The EPA is required by law to continuously analyze the economic impact where enforcing the Clean Air Act. McCarthy showed evidence that the EPA is hostile toward accepting the mission that Congress had established for the agency.

The EPA owes its powers exclusively to Congress, but shows contempt to their roots by acting as an independent power. The EPA operates as if it’s entitled to enforce the legal provisions they wish, and ignore the ones they feel are inconvenient for them. Agencies who operate in such a manner are a threat to American freedom.

Judge Bailey has ordered the EPA to identify facilities which were harmed by regulations under the Obama administration by July 1, including facilities at risk of closing or cutting staff members. The EPA doesn’t feel that analyzing job loss will change global energy trends. This kind of arrogance is typical from the agency, which is responsible for carrying out its duties in accordance with the statutory mandate from Congress, and not for analyzing global energy trends.

Judge Bailey reminded McCarthy that the EPA doesn’t get to decide which governing provisions they can ignore, and that the EPA had the ability to recommend amendments to Congress. “It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it,” said Judge Bailey.

It will be important for the Trump administration to round up all rogue agencies in the US and ensure they are in compliance with the law. It won’t be an easy battle considering entrenched Democratic bureaucrats will be fighting every step of the way to maintain dictatorial supremacy over everyone. Judges like John Bailey, who are willing to stand up for the laws and resist liberal bureaucratic dictatorship, help make the difference.

Learn more about the EPA’s climate science fraud at ClimateScienceNews.com.

Sources:

PowerlineBlog.com

WashingtonTimes.com

Dr. Judith Curry, a respected climatologist and tenured professor at Georgia Tech University, has decided to leave her “dream job” in academia after years of battling with those pushing the climate change agenda – a group of narrow-minded zealots who accept nothing less than complete agreement with their theoretical biases. (RELATED: Stay up to date on real climate change news at ClimateScienceNews.com)

In other words, a powerful coalition of scientists, politicians and other interested parties have decided that empirical scientific method is no longer valid when it comes to evaluating the state of the planet’s climate and its future permutations – they have all the answers, it seems, and no further critical investigation is allowed.

Of course, this is bogus science – all valid scientific theory is dependent on critical evaluation and when scientific research becomes politicized, it no longer can be trusted. (Coming soon: FakeScience.news, which will catalog all the fake science being pushed by bureaucrats and globalists.)

Judith Curry recognized this, and although her decision to leave Georgia Tech was partly based on other motivations, including expanding her climate analytics firm, there were other “deeper reasons” behind her early exit from the ivory tower.

In a blog post, Curry wrote:

“I’m ‘cashing out’ with 186 published journal articles and two books. The superficial reason is that I want to do other things, and no longer need my university salary. This opens up an opportunity for Georgia Tech to make a new hire.

“The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.”

“I walk around with knives sticking out of my back”

Curry’s position on climate change seems reasonable enough – she believes that mankind’s activities certainly have an effect on the climate, but that current climate models are inadequate in terms of supporting the claims of the global warming faithful.

When she publicly questioned the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , she was labeled a “climate heretic” in a Scientific American article.

Her criticism of climate change alarmists and insistence on adhering to sound scientific principles led to her becoming treated as a pariah within the academic world.

Curry told Fox News:

“I’ve been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don’t like anybody challenging their big story.”

“I walk around with knives sticking out of my back. In the university environment I felt like I was just beating my head against the wall.”

Curry wrote in her blog that she no longer knew what to tell students “regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.”

Ike saw it coming

An excellent op-ed piece written by Jerry Shenk for The Mercury points out that what Curry and others have encountered is precisely what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his famous speech regarding the creation of a military-industrial complex in the United States.

Along with the danger posed by the private arms industry working hand in hand with the federal government, Ike also cautioned against the “prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money.”

In the post-truth era, “fake science” is competing with empirical science and threatening to destroy one of the foundations modern society was built upon, just as “fake news” (i.e. mainstream media) poses a very real threat to legitimate journalism and our nation’s underlying democratic principles.

The issue isn’t whether climate change is real or not, but whether we can continue to allow agenda-driven scientific dogma to direct academic research and public policy.

Shenk quotes Thomas Huxley’s words: “…[S]kepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

In the midst of today’s political climate, however, performing one’s duty as a skeptic is rewarded by a cold shoulder – at least within the academic world. (Stay informed about other media hoaxes at Hoax.news)

Sources:

DailyCaller.com

DailyCaller.com

PottsMerc.com

There has been a plethora of evidence to prove the whole thing is a hoax, for anyone willing to actually see it and accept it. This has ranged from faking warming data, to pretending that climate change is “settled science,” to hiding the real motives behind the hoax. In fact, hoaxers have even changed the entire narrative; once upon a time it wasn’t global warming that was going to destroy all life, it was global cooling.

Now, there is even mathematical evidence proving the great climate lie. Infowars reporter Millie Weaver recently interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a conservative British politician and inventor of mathematical puzzle “Eternity,” who said there is a breaking discovery that will prove the entire climate change scare is based on faulty mathematics. This seems logical, given that the vast majority of claims that the earth is warming and that modern industry is the cause are primarily based on incorrect computer models.

At a conference in Phoenix called, “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie,” Monckton discussed in depth a mathematical discovery made by he and his team and that their findings have since been submitted for the proper academic peer review. (RELATED: Follow the real science about climate change at ClimateScienceNews.com)

‘I knew there was an error’

The team of international scientists has “discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.” He said if the error is taken away, “there is no longer any climate problem.” And while there will indeed be “one or two Celsius of warming” and a doubling of CO² concentration “but you won’t get much more than that.”

The notion being pushed by Left-wing control freaks in global government that our planet is warming at an alarming, unstoppable rate, is completely bogus, and it always has been. Monckton and his team have demonstrated it mathematically, and no matter how many more times alarmist hoaxer Al Gore claims all of the ice caps are going to disappear “soon,” it just isn’t true. (But the sheeple will believe almost anything. Follow more sheeple news at Sheeple.news)

Monckton said he has known that the modeling error existed and that he had been trying to find it for about a decade. “But I didn’t know what the error was,” he told Weaver. “I just knew they’d made a mistake.” He also says he knew that because he is “a classical mathematician,” which is based on the findings of Menaechmus of Alopeconnesus (380-320 BC).

As further reported by The New American, Monckton—a climate realist and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—showed during his conference presentation that the so-called “red flags” of climate change based largely on United Nations data were nearly all wrong. Because of this and other problems associated with the UN, he then proposed that both Britain and the U.S. leave the UN, even though Monckton has been a regular at UN “climate” summits around the world, to expose their fraud and mock their phony findings and made-up data. He even dropped into one such event held in South Africa with a parachute.

Tired of seeing bad policy made on phony narratives

Monckton’s instincts were spot-on, as noted by an earlier report from The Daily Caller noting that 95 percent of climate models predicting rising temperatures have been wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, says climate models relied on by the federal government (which has been all-in pushing this hoax under President Obama) to create actual policies “have failed miserably.” So not only is the science incorrect, but actual government policies are being based on these failed models. (Stay informed on real science at Scientific.news)

Spencer said he examined 90 climate models and compared them to real surface temperatures and satellite temperature data; he found more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trends since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

On his blog, Spencer wrote that he had grown tired of well-used and oft-cited statements since the 1950s that “most warming” is “human-caused,” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming” (a lie), neither of which led to any demonstrable conclusion that proved the claims. He said such statements also should not have led government policymakers to conclude that “we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more people to death for the greater good.” And yet, that’s exactly the direction all of the policy is going.

Sources:

BigGovernment.news

NaturalNews.com

Newsbusters.org

DailyCaller.com

A federal lawsuit filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) led to the release of documents confirming details of the planned “Protective Action Guides” (PAGs) to be implemented, which include the new radically higher maximum allowable radiation levels.

PEER has accused the EPA of jeopardizing public health in favor of public relations.

From a PEER press release dated December 22, 2016:

“Following Japan’s Fukushima meltdown in 2011, EPA’s claims that no radioactivity could reach the U.S. at levels of concern were contradicted by its own rainwater measurements showing contamination from Fukushima throughout the U.S. well above Safe Drinking Water Act limits. In reaction, EPA prepared new limits 1000s of times higher than even the Fukushima rainwater because ‘EPA experienced major difficulties conveying to the public that the detected levels…were not of immediate concern for public health.’”

EPA kept details of new guidelines a secret

Although the EPA released its proposed PAGs for public comment, it conveniently neglected to include “all but four of the 110 radionuclides covered, and refused to reveal how much they were above Safe Drinking Water Act limits.”

Only after the PEER lawsuit forced the EPA to release the pertinent documents did it become clear how much the levels were to be increased. Even so, more than 60,000 people had already left comments in opposition of the proposed guidelines on the agency’s website.

Current drinking water radiation limits are defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act, established in the 1970s.

The documents obtained by PEER revealed that the EPA plans to raise maximum allowable limits of iodine-131, cobalt-60 and calcium-45 to more than 10,000 times the levels allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Others would be hundreds or thousands of times higher under the new guidelines.

The agency’s justification for withholding the new proposed limits from the public until after the proposal had been adopted was that it wanted to “avoid confusion.”

The EPA deliberately hid the details not only from the public, but also from some of its own staff, according to PEER:

“The documents also reveal that EPA’s radiation division even hid the new concentrations from other divisions of EPA that were critical of the proposal, requiring repeated efforts to get them to even be disclosed internally.”

Even the George W. Bush administration’s attempt to introduce higher limits – a plan that was ultimately withdrawn – was modest in comparison to the levels proposed under the Obama EPA.

On December 1, outgoing EPA administrator Gina McCarthy gave final approval to all of the proposed PAGs – except for the drinking water standards. It’s unclear at this point whether she will actually approve the water section before leaving office, or whether she will leave the issue to the next administration to deal with.

Voice your opposition (before it’s too late)

There appears to be a good chance McCarthy will approve the rest of the PAGs before the changing of the guard, and there is still time to make your opposition to the proposals known.

It’s important to understand that higher allowable radiation limits will take pressure off the nuclear and fracking industries as well, which may be the real motivation for the establishment of the new guidelines – with Fukushima merely serving as an excuse to do so.

“The Dr. Strangelove wing of EPA does not want this information shared with many of its own experts, let alone the public,” said PEER executive director Jeff Ruch. “This is a matter of public health that should be promulgated in broad daylight rather than slimed through in the witching hours of a departing administration.”

If you would like to voice your opposition to the EPA plan, click here.

Sources:

PEER.org

CommitteeToBridgeTheGap.org

PSR.org

The so-called “Climate Action Plan” put forth by Barack Obama has certain goals attached to it that, regardless of their scientific merit, must be met in order for the agenda to move forward. Achieving these goals requires scientists like Metting to first conform to the agenda, then provide “scientific evidence” to back policy proposals that will help move it forward, something that Metting apparently failed to achieve on behalf of the White House.

According to The Daily Caller, Metting was asked certain questions by the House Science, Space and Technology and Senate Energy and Natural Resources committees back in 2014, to which she responded honestly. These questions pertained to pending climate legislation that a congressional committee investigation found the DOE was trying to kill, regardless of what science had to say on the matter.

What was revealed is that Metting was essentially punished for not towing the DOE line, refusing to conform to what the investigatory body found to be “predetermined remarks” by the DOE. Instead, she provided “candid and complete information” as any legitimate scientist would, which simply wasn’t acceptable in the eyes of the Obama administration.

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Science, Space and Technology committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, said in a statement about the matter.

“The DOE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. DOE’s disregard for separation of powers is … an institutional problem that must be corrected.”

Will scientific truth once again prevail under Donald Trump?

It is certainly a sad state of affairs in the United States when scientists acting on behalf of the public interest are bullied into suppressing the truth in order to push a political agenda. In this case, that agenda is climate change policies that aim to further control the lives of ordinary people under the guise of “protecting the environment.”

For folks like Metting, telling the truth is now a consequential offense punishable by a retaliatory firing — at least for the rest of Obama’s term. Many are hopeful that under a Trump administration, truth might once again prevail in the realm of science in the public interest, though that remains to be seen.

This type of scenario — the truth being actively suppressed in order to push an agenda — is something with which Americans have had to grow uncomfortably familiar. Whether it takes place at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or some other lettered agency, it has become commonplace for politics to trump truth, for special interests to overtake the public interest.

This could all change in the coming years, but only time will tell. In the meantime, recognizing the problem and informing the public about it is the best way to bring about real and fundamental change. Telling the truth shouldn’t cost you your job, especially when that job is simply to inform Congress about the facts of something in order to help steer policy for the betterment of all people.

Sources:

DailyCaller.com

DailyCaller.com

The recent fake news headline, “Scientists are frantically copying US climate data fearing it might vanish under Trump,” would pose major problems for the scientists, if it were true. Government employees, who protect government data by transferring it into private servers, would be committing the same federal crime that plagued Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts.

Among the shocking revelations from 2009’s Climategate emails was the destruction of raw temperature data, by scientists who were supposed to maintain it. At the admission Phil Jones, a Climatic Research Unit member at the University of East Anglia, original raw data had not been kept due to storage availability. That seems more inline with something corrupt scientists would be inclined to do, opposed to preserving data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a lawsuit over climategate because the EPA’s climate policies rely on the data that had been destroyed.

It’s typical to see the climate alarmist establishment freaking out over a Trump presidency; they are now at risk of having their lies exposed. Donald Trump is in no mood to show mercy to those who have manipulated raw temperature data to exaggerate global warming. Climate alarmists are claiming that the Trump administration won’t look after the data.

A Trump advisor has called for NASA to return to its roots, and focus solely on space exploration, not climate research. NASA’s focus on climate research was a bureaucratic overreach for the aeronautic space administration.

Trump’s transition team has sent an inquiry to the Department of Energy asking for the names of employees who are associated with climate change. The incoming administration wants to know which members have been attending annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations, which department workers have attended meetings regarding the social cost of carbon, which employees receive the highest salaries, and which websites were maintained, or contributed to, by lab staff during scheduled work hours.

The questioning of the Department of Energy shows that Trump administration is preparing to do good work. Since the left-wing considers climate change to be among the highest of government priorities and a threat to national security, they should be happy to see Trump’s team making those inquiries.

Sources:

Breitbart.com

NewRightNews.org