Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

Basically, the argument that since someone published something then it must have some merit is always tenuous (though admittedly it is often the case in science that that has to suffice), but especially when the 'someone' is not an expert in the field and the 'published' is not in a peer reviewed journal. At that point I feel it is incumbent on anyone who quotes the guy to look at the data.

I read Carlin's brief. He is not so much trying to debunk "Global Warming", as he is asking the EPA to consider that the IPCC, and other reports may be based on one sided thinking. His point is that the EPA is the environmental action arm of the US government. He lists a number of valid omissions and possible omissions to the peer reviewed work that has been published. Really, he is asking that before the EPA jumps on the popular band wagon enforcing environmental legislation (which will harm people economically) that they protect the EPA's reputation by insuring the science is unbiased. The alternative would be litigation by those people harmed, who will bring lawsuits against the US government where the government has no defense. When it comes to impartiality, justice (usually) is blind, politics chooses the winning side, and scientists are supporters of their own theories.