While I received it this week (Tuesday or Wednesday, I think) it is, in fact, dated February 1 - the same day as this Toomey email response.
Weird, huh? Doesn't the left hand know what the right hand is doing over there?
The letter begins with this:
Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.Now we gotta figure out which letter he's answering.
As you may know, on January 9, 2019, EPA Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler was officially nominated to serve as the agency's permanent administrator.
It's turning out to be difficult as I have NEVER written about Andrew Wheeler - ever. And the last time I asked Senator Toomey anything about the EPA was way back in September of 2017.
Senator Toomey already, kinda sorta, answered that letter. You can read my analysis here.
Reading that analysis, it should be obvious that this story is not going to end well for Senator Toomey or his office. You'll see why in a minute.
In Toomey's response to my twenty-seventh letter, he begins with this:
Thank you for contacting me about the protection and conservation of our environment. I appreciate hearing from you.And in 2017 I asked about that:
Huh? When did I write to Senator Toomey specifically about the environment?Sound familiar? Let's keep going. I wrote that Toomey offers up a clue in a later paragraph. This paragraph:
As such, I understand your thoughts about the conservation of our environment and climate change. During Senate consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2015, I voted in support of several amendments about these issues, including an amendment which acknowledged that human activity contributes to climate change.Uh-oh. This is where Toomey took a tumble. I say that because in the letter I received this week (the one dated February 1) there's this paragraph:
Some who have contacted me about Mr. Wheeler have expressed particular worry over climate change. During Senate consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2015, I voted in support of several amendments about these issues, including an amendment that acknowledged human activity contributes to climate change.Same sentence separated by about two years. It's still a lie of omission, by the way.
Let me explain why (just as I did in 2017 and originally in 2015).
There were three amendments on that day in January, 2015 regarding Climate Change. The first stated that:
...climate change is real and not a hoax.Toomey voted for that, good for him.
The second one stated that:
...climate change is real; and human activity contributes to climate change.Toomey voted for that as well, good for him a second time.
However (and this is where the lie by omission occurs) there was a third vote that day. That one stated:
...climate change is real; and human activity significantly contributes to climate change. [emphasis added.]Senator Pat Toomey voted against that.
So let's sum up. Senator Toomey wants us to infer that he believes the climate science from his votes in January of 2015. However, using those votes as evidence, it turns out that Toomey believes:
- Climate change is not a hoax
- Human activity contributes to climate change
- Just. Not. Significantly.
During Senate consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2015, I voted in support of several amendments about these issues, including an amendment that acknowledged human activity contributes to climate change.You'll note he leaves out the word "significantly" here. He wants us to believe that he agrees with the science - when he actually does not as all of the science points to this fact: that human activity significantly contributes to climate change - precisely what Toomey voted against. Knowing his voting record regarding climate science, you should see his deception clearly.
Shame on him for lying to his constituency this way. For trying to get us to assume he's taken an environmental position that he actually hasn't.
Text of Toomey's letter:
Dear David
Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.
As you may know, on January 9, 2019, EPA Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler was officially nominated to serve as the agency's permanent administrator.
I have heard from a number of Pennsylvanians both in support and opposition to the leadership at the EPA and its environmental agenda. While U support sensible environmental protections, I am concerned about the excessive – and often duplicative – regulations that have come out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years and have needlessly impeded job creation and harmed Pennsylvania farmers. I am encouraged by the administration's commitment to undo regulations that imposed onerous compliance costs and undermined economic growth, and I am hopeful that Mr. Wheeler will pursue a balanced approach that is mindful of both our economy and our environment.
There are several matters currently before the EPA that are of particular importance to our state. Changes to the renewable fuel standard, i.e. the government mandate that motorists' gasoline contain ethanol, could adversely affect air quality and refineries that support good-paying jobs for thousands of Pennsylvanians. I am also monitoring how the EPA approaches regulation of perflourooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perflourooctaone sulfonate (PFOS) given that drinking water sources for several communities in southeastern Pennsylvania may have been contaminated by these chemicals, which were used in firefighting foam at local military bases.
Some who have contacted me about Mr. Wheeler have expressed particular worry over climate change. During Senate consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2015, I voted in support of several amendments about these issues, including an amendment that acknowledged human activity contributes to climate change.
Please be assured that I value your input and will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers the nomination of Mr. Wheeler or future legislation on the environment.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1103783544172687365
ReplyDelete"The IPCC rules for reviewing draft reports have served the scientific and policy communities well for numerous past international assessment rounds. If there is further evidence that you can not accept them, or if your intent is to use your access to the review process to challenge them, then we will not be able to continue to treat you as an expert reviewer for the IPCC."