EPA DOING OBAMA'S BIDDING ILLEGALLY?

If you had any doubt that politicians have no shame, look no further than Congress, which seems to be allowing an agency that answers to the Executive Branch (Obama) to enforce laws the congress won't enact. It has the stench of both blackmail and doubling down in light of climategate.

By threatening to declare carbon dioxide (CO2) a gas that is harmful to the enviornment, the EPA is laying the groundwork for policy that would be more harmful than any Cap & Trade legislation.

So how tied to climategate is this threat from the EPA? NEWSMAX reports on the notion that Obama should demand the EPA withdraw such a claim about CO2 because that claim is based on the faulty data at the heart of climategate:

Republicans and conservative think tanks are calling for the Obama administration to revoke its declaration that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant subject to EPA regulation on the grounds that the EPA's primary source of information for the finding was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

An important source of data for the IPCC was the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, the source of the highly controversial "climategate" e-mails. IPCC officials deny that their data on climate change is in any way biased.

This is where the doubling down takes place. However, the bigger climategate gets and the more that's exposed, the more Obama will have tied himself and his agenda to fraudulent science. And the more he does that, the more complicit he becomes in perpetuating it.

How about the response of EPA head, Lisa Jackson, to the question about why she didn't consider requests to deny her agency's action based on climategate?

When Jackson was asked during Monday's news conference why she didn't accede to GOP requests to put off the EPA finding until the climategate e-mails could be investigated, she replied: "I didn't delay it because there is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermine the science upon which this decision was made," adding, "This issue has not raised new scientific questions that are not addressed already in this finding."

Really?

Read the WHOLE THING.

h/t to FR