Did the EPA supress a negative global warming study in order to boost "cap and trade"?

Remember when liberals went nuts a couple of years ago over allegations that the Bush White House reprimanded NASA meteorologist Dr. James Hansen for his outspoken opinions about global warming?

Well get a load of this:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained internal EPA e-mails that show the agency willfully and recklessly disregarded scientific data that undermined the bureaucracy’s global warming zealotry. This information is especially relevant as Congress rushes to pass the cap-and-trade nightmare on Friday.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman has notified the EPA and requested that the internal communications and suppressed study be released to the public and added to the public record. Will another whistleblower be disappeared? Note especially this warning to the dissenting scientist: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. 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… 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.”

[…]

The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:

1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;

2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);

3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. 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… 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.” (Emphasis added);

4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating ” I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”

Mr. McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA’s proposed position.

Why, all of the sudden, would research studies and data that contradict the IPCC’s hallowed global warming models be so dangerous that EPA officials would conspire to suppress them? Would it have to do with the massive (1200+ pages that most assuredly no one has actually read) cap and trade bill now before the House of Representatives?

I thought the Obama Administration and the Democratic party were all about “science.” Silly me — I guess they are only interested in the “science” that advances embryonic stem cell harvesting, late-term abortion, health care rationing, and global warming.

If “cap and trade” passes, here is what we can look forward to:

America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.

“They’ll be searching the globe for refined products that don’t carry the same level of carbon costs,” said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.

We’ll also be paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars more for electricity and natural gas each year. Just what we need in the middle of a deepening recession.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

AIP Column: The UK's National Health Service and the Ford Pinto School of Cost Analysis
Such An Ass.