Environmental Protection Agency - what a wonderful concept and title. However, are the atmospheric scientists in its employ dedicated to the purity and demands of true “science”, or are they political ideologues, willing to compromise their academic achievements and standards for financial or career benefits?

While not a credentialed PhD scientist and with no presumptions of expertise in global warming - and submitting to no preconceptions as to whether or not global Earth is experiencing warming; or if so, whether hamankinds’ carbon emissions are or are not significant - however, I (along with most of humanity) have developed a deep appreciation and trust in the discipline of true science. Having spent over half-a-century using arcane scientific equations to help design pioneering aerospace vehicles: Mach 1 (F-100), Mach 2 (Concorde), Mach 3 (B-70), Space Shuttle (through first three flights, I am shocked by recent “leaked” e-mail disclosures by “atmospheric scientists” of doctored and omitted temperature data. There are also challenges to EPA’s computer program as excluding significant factors in theoretical greenhouse effect simulation, such as cloud cover. Both of these significant issues are ignored by the EPA, raising serious questions as to the credibility of the scientific basis of its extrapolated global-warming scenario. Despite these shocking disclosures, I - and the world - can see the obvious liberal agenda of the EPA and the mainstream media at work, successfully sweeping such stories “under the rug”. Meanwhile, the US administration bull-dozes ahead with an ideological agenda, possibly promising a significant 17% reduction in US carbon emissions - as if the need for such by the US (perhaps alone among nations in dispositive action-taking) was absolutely proven for survival of planet Earth. Thus, the official US position seems to compromise Science for politics - to support the UN Ecological Conference in Copenhagen this coming week - as if its position was truly science-based.

The lack of discipline and rectitude, evident in both the e-mail exposures and their dismissal by government leaders, provide clear evidences that this EPA project is but a poor excuse for “science” - in sharp contrast to all other scientific knowledge held in such reverence by the public. Past achievements of science are so unchallengeable that expectations should not now be trivialized by political posturing - Einsteinian Time Relativity, for example. Einstein’s Theory (now proven Law), demonstrably precise and reliable at extremes of applicability, states that the “passage of Time”, as experienced by “observers” in different locations, is affected by differences in gravity and velocity. Thus, at minor variations in the parameters, e.g. the common Global Positioning System of satellites rotating above Earth, a daily correction of their atomic clocks is required - millionths of a second, compared to Earth-borne atomic clocks. However, for the astronomical differences in gravity and velocity to a theoretical “observer” - positioned in the cosmos of the expanding Universe (after the Big Bang created our Universe) is such that his first 24-hour day would be the same as about seven billion years to an observer on Earth. That is the precision of true science, what the world has learned to trust (even, if its comprehension may be difficult to grasp). How different is this EPA “science”, ignoring challenges which no “scientist” can dismiss - admitted doctoring of data and omissions of critical factors in computer simulation, e.g. the cloud-cover effect of a global greenhouse!

What a let-down from the scientists of history!