From: The Daily Caller
In a report released Wednesday (at Sen. Inhofe’s request, dating back to April) the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “public health and welfare.”
From Yahoo today:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration cut corners before concluding that climate-change pollution can endanger human health, a key finding underpinning costly new regulations, an internal government watchdog said Wednesday.
…
The report said EPA should have followed a more extensive review process for a technical paper supporting its determination that greenhouse gases pose dangers to human health and welfare, a finding that ultimately compelled it to issue controversial and expensive regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time.
“While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA’s finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all the required steps,” said Inspector Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. in a statement Wednesday.
The EPA and White House said the greenhouse gas document did not require more independent scrutiny because the scientific evidence it was based on already had been thoroughly reviewed. The agency did have the document vetted by 12 experts, although one of those worked for EPA.
“The report importantly does not question or even address the science used or the conclusions reached,” the EPA said in a statement. The environmental agency said its work “followed all appropriate guidance,” a conclusion supported by the White House budget official who wrote the peer review guidelines in 2005.
…
The greenhouse gas decision — which marked a reversal from the Bush administration — was announced in December 2009, a week before President Barack Obama headed to international negotiations in Denmark on a new treaty to curb global warming. At the time, progress was stalled in Congress on a new law to reduce emissions in the United States.
Online:
EPA inspector general’s report: http://www.epa.gov/oig/
Full report at Senate EPW: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09
I am sick of the EPA and here is 230,000 more reasons why!
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1Z60gcpuY
A federal agency ‘cooking the books’ – has this ever been done before – in recent times even?
Did the FCC cook the books on broadband over power lines?
Excerpt:
New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
Excerpt:
Naw … “Never been done before. Even in recent times.”
-Unknown govt bureaucrat
.
Dave says:
September 28, 2011 at 8:29 pm
“……Who is responsible for ascertaining the scientific integrity of studies and reports submitted to our legislators? And, isn’t it about time that we have some kind of absolute standard of accepted research studies and reports?…..”
It is well past time!
I looked at some of the reports on Agriculture submitted that I found through Wikileaks and I was appalled by the outright lies. As far as I can tell the US government is now run by the lobbies and citizens are looked upon as “resources” to be squeezed dry of every last penny.
Environmental Activists and others are nothing more than manipulated useful ‘Innocents’ Who is who and who is the enemy is a very confusing kaleidoscope, where a Canadian living in China, billionaire capitalist Maurice Strong is a hardline socialist promoting AGW, the UN’s Agenda 21 and Global Govenance while contributing to both the democratic and republican parties in the USA.
“”””” Doug in Seattle says:
September 28, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Flaunted is common US usage, even if not correct Queen’s English. “””””
And “The Queen’s English” is not even correct British usage; there being no such thing.
It is, and always has been “The King’s English” It is a technical term that dates from one of the King James or maybe one of the Charles.
It refers to the approved language of the Royal Court, and is unrelated in any way to the current occupier of the Throne.
At the moment “The Queen” (Elizabeth II) IS “The King”.
Anyone want to bet on how many Hockey Stick Team members were among the 12 reviewers?
I am betting on 3 minimum.
Mods, the link to OIG above doesn’t lead directly to the report,
EPA inspector general’s report: http://www.epa.gov/oig/
This is the link to the entire report, well worth reading!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09
hmmmm….that was perhaps the best $300,000 investment made by the EPA, evah!
From Dave on September 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm:
230,000 new unionized bureaucrats beholden to Democrats for their jobs, with a vested interest in keeping (liberal) Democrats in control of the White House so they can keep their jobs? Then there are their families as well who likewise want them to stay employed…
Well, at a mere US$91,300 per job, that’s far cheaper than what was paid out under the Stimulus bill. Actually, it sounds too cheap, when figuring in training costs, government benefits, office setup and supplies… Were they planning on outsourcing to contractors using undocumented immigrants, and/or relying on that favorite D.C. symbol of (Democrat) power and dominance, unpaid interns?
I tried to follow the links back to the source and the EPA link to the PDF is broken right now. I’d really like to know where this review came from. IF it is just more political nonsense then it won’t have legs. If it is legitimate, then it may provide legal grounds to block the EPA rules. I would love to be able to source this properly.
I have been waiting for the day that EPA not only gets its hands slapped, but their heads cut off. My own past dealings with EPA (and their nitwit state delegated authority, TCEQ) made it quite obvious that they are not a scientific agency, but merely a political one that uses science for its nefarious ends. Protecting the environment is the last thing on their mind – instead, they are advancing the agenda of the environmentalist wacko-types who want us all to wash our clothes on rocks and otherwise return us to the Middle Ages. No sense of balance, no perspective in that agency. It is now time to act – 2012 elections are around the corner. Anyone with a plan to fundamentally reform EPA’s structure, alter its mission, and reduce its bureaucratic powers to unreasonably delay, financially burden, and hamper American economic activity will be supported by me.
Eviscerate them politically, along with their leftist, Democratic allies.
This is not the first time the EPA fudged things to get the results they wanted. Take their second-hand smoke ruling — it’s junk science.
BTW: I don’t smoke, don’t own tobacco stocks or work for Big Tobacco. I also have no doubt that second-hand smoke isn’t good for me and no, I don’t want to breathe it. But that doesn’t change the fact that the EPA’s ruling on second-hand smoke is politicized junk science.
And the cost-benefit report, with backup, has not been released yet.