EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming 1057
Posted
by
timothy
from the just-some-random-nutjob dept.
from the just-some-random-nutjob dept.
theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:3, Interesting)
Please tell me, how am I supposed to stop giving them power (with legal means of course).
I dunno... (Score:4, Interesting)
This man has been working for the EPA since 1971. [googlepages.com] Hell, he helped BUILD the place.
So what if he's "just an economist"? According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive. Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you. Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?
It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service. Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.
I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:4, Interesting)
Lunatic Fringe (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course this story will bring all the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork. They will argue that global warming really doesn't exist, or that it's not anthropogenic, and other such things. It makes them feel great to imagine they can see something which the larger scientific community is clearly missing. They can feel like heroes.
Well, sorry to dash your hopes, climate-change deniers, but this report is akin to a convicted criminal filing appeal after appeal after appeal, not to bring up some point of fact or law, but simply to clog the system and delay his sentence. After a certain mass of evidence has accumulated, you've got to find something extraordinary to reverse the judgment. Appeals eventually end.
As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Considering the vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature, and considering this paper's lack of relevant extraordinary evidence, quashing the report was certainly the right thing to do. It would eventually be rebuffed anyway, but doing so would divert resources from valuable endeavors and provide the not-so-loyal opposition with ammunition to delay climate change in the legislature. We've studied the problem enough: now it's time to say "enough is enough" and work on solutions.
The sole purpose of government is politics. (Score:1, Interesting)
Most independent voters who voted for Hillary Clinton or wanted to vote for Michael Bloomberg knew what would happen if Obama took office. Our worst fears have been realized.
An early example showing the real Obama is found in a quite startling essay [wsj.com] published by the "Wall Street Journal". The Justice Department, under the leadership of Obama, dismissed a "civil lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party. The Black Panthers weren't content to endorse Barack Obama. They sent their members to the polls last November to 'patrol election sites.' Fox News aired a video of two Black Panthers in military-style uniforms in a Philadelphia precinct. One of them was carrying a nightstick. ... The complaint the Justice Department filed in January (before Messrs. Obama and Holder took over) says the Panthers made 'racial threats and racial insults' to voters and 'menacing and intimidating, gestures, statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.' One witness, Bartle Bull, a civil-rights lawyer who worked with Charles Evers in Mississippi in the 1960s, called it the worst voter intimidation he had ever seen.".
The latest example showing the real Obama is this attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to censor opposing opinions. In this case, the EPA claims that the critic, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), is not a "real" scientist. Yet, Dr. Carlin has a Bachelor's degree in physics from Caltech and a Doctorate in (intensively mathematical) economics from MIT. The Caltech degree, by itself, puts Dr. Carlin in league with the very best. The training that went into that Bachelor's degree is equivalent to a Master's degree (in physics) from a lesser university.
Personally, I believe that global warming is real, but I -- as an educated Westerner -- respect the dissenting opinion of reputable scientists like Dr. Carlin. I oppose censoring them.
Note that the Bush administration attempted the same kind of censorshop in the other direction. According to a report [nytimes.com] by the "New York Times", the Bush administration had censored a NASA climatologist who was warning about the certainty of global warming.
Here's the bottom line. The emperor has changed, but his clothes remain the same. Hopefully, President Nicolas Sarkozy can save us American voters from our stupidity in electing the worst political candidates -- time after time.
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:1, Interesting)
No. The PATRIOT Act doesn't affect free speech. No laws were ever enacted to eliminate "anti-American" speech. Not in the last 40-50 years. You should focus on what's actually true.
As for marriage, why does 3-5% of the population get to decide for the other 96% what a marriage is? Republicans didn't show up and try to make changes to marriage. And marriage isn't a civil liberties issue anyway, unless you think the government is stomping on the civil liberties of brothers who can't marry their sisters or a guy who can't marry his second or third wife.
(I agree that the government should stay out of marriage, by the way. But that means stay out of it, not tell people that every relationship is the same as a marriage and you'll be fined or arrested if you disagree and decide to treat it differently. Fining and arresting people is a civil liberties issue, BTW.)
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject
Excuse me? As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
Please provide links to the data of this mysterious "everyone else" you refer to that contradict the published UAH and RSS data.
Otherwise, I think we have a completely new record of asshattery from our coward here: The Appeal to Authority fallacy without any actual authority. Awesome!
Re:Oh this "best fit" (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of,
As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
their "best fit" (the violet line).
OK my friend, if your trend line from January 2002 to May 2009 is not a decline of 0.26 degrees per decade like their violet line, what is it then and how did you arrive at it?
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, I'm impressed that some moderator found that comment insightful, since (a) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the person in the article is a *climate scientist* or not, (b) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the the person in the article should be relied upon for an independent *scientific opinion* to be incorporated into a scientific report, (c) Al Gore has not, to my knowledge, attempted to speak *as a climate scientist* nor, to my knowledge, has he ever held himself out as *a climate scientist*, and (d) I've yet to see Al Gore attempt to introduce his own theories as to global warming derived from his own *scientific analysis*--my understanding is that he attempts to explain and distill what *scientists or the scientific literature* tell him, rather than relying on his own expertise.
So apparently the bar for 'insightful' on Slashdot these days is 'irrelevant, and comprising a logical fallacy'?
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that there could be global warming. However government restrictions on the economy are not the answer. The free market will always have a solution to the problem.
Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:5, Interesting)
I join you in being irked at this development. There was a time when virtually everyone thought the EPA was doing a rather impressive job. In fact, the whole government was doing a nice job overall at reducing pollutants that were/are actively harming people.
The paranoid side of me thinks that the EPA was doing TOO good a job. I sometimes think AGW was introduced to fracture what should be a very solid coalition of people who agree "pollution is bad m'kay". Instead we now have jihadists taking "sides" on whether AGW is real and exactly what to do to prevent it (or ignore it depending on your side). Rather than, as you pointed out, dealing with mercury levels in our oceans that are so high fish have to come with a warning.
Reversing Tide? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just when Obama is about to spend tens of billions of the people's money on pseudoscientific environmental BS, this story shows up on Slashdot? And here I was complaining that Slashdot was a bastion of polical correctness and a mouthpiece for environmental wackos. Is the tide is reversing on the climate change alarmists/con artists or am I just dreaming?
Watch out, Obama. The public will tear you a new asshole if it so much as suspects that it's being ripped off by the enviro-mafia.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to believe that it is impossible to burn THIS much fuel and have no effect on a balanced system. I pretty much believe Climate Change(tm) is possible.
My problem is that some of this has become the flat-earth dogma that science is supposed to rise above.
My wife is a wildlife biologist. Has a degree in Zoology and Conservation Ecology. Working on her masters. Her office consists of wildlife tech's working their way thru the "tree-hugger circuit" as I call it: taking several years worth of seasonal wildlife technician jobs before finding a permanent one. So I've hung out with, rock climbed with, had BBQ's with many more "hackysack-playing, bluegrass-listening, quickdry-and-plaid-wearing 20-something's" with ecological bachelors and masters degrees than you are ever likely to meet.
So take me as something of an educated witness that an ecological degree caries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question global warming" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
Broad brush? Unfairly stereo-typing? Mostly true? Yep. I put more faith behind the physics degree in explaining physical natural phenomena.
It doesn't matter, really. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Democrats have made up their mind. The laws will be passed.
No matter what the rest of the world does, they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship. Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out. The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is. Some day the whole truth will come out, that we won't know if this works for another 400 years.
The entire US economy is about to be ruined. Hopefully these green people won't mind plowing fields themselves, because that's where we are headed.
Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy. What a colossal lie. What a treason. What a waste.
Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally, the U.S. proposals, and the assumptions about effort elsewhere, are extended to 2100 to allow exploration of the potential role of these bills in the longer-term challenge of reducing climate change risk. Simulations show that the 50% to 80% targets are consistent with global goals of atmospheric stabilization at 450 to 550 ppmv CO2 but only if other nations, including the developing countries, follow suit.
Just the lunacy of focusing on CO2. There have been studies on plants, and they are practically STARVING for more CO2. If anything we should be looking for more ways to get MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, no I'm serious! Apparently the yield increases in plants may have had something to do with the slight increase in CO2 we have managed over the past 100 years. Colorado University agrees with me on this anyway.
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
So if we cut CO2 levels we might not be able to squeeze as much yield out of our fields as we are currently doing. Well it's a good thing we're moving to more ethanol bases products. Oh wait, hold on a second...
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, so it seems what you're basically saying here is, the guy's background is in physics and econonomics--he's not a climate scientist (btw, who is--do you have to have a degree called "climate science" or can other scientists count as well?) and so his writings on anything touching on the climate should just be dismissed (I notice that you haven't touched on any of the merits / lack thereof of anything he's actually written, so I assume this is your point of view)?
Lastly, since he doesn't fit in the "solid consensus," he should just get in line with the consensus.
You'll forgive me, but that doesn't sound like any kind of scientific community / environment that I would want to be associated with or promote, and I seriously hope you would agree. I don't think this has anything to do with what side of the "global warming debate" / whatever you want to call it you fall on.
btw, slightly off-topic, but it seems somewhat noteworthy that others were interested in the EPA's submission process of the IPCC as seen at: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354 [climateaudit.org]
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Interesting)
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
Who protects us from corporate greed? (Score:2, Interesting)
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems Obama isn't the only one quashing dissenting opinions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Summary. Leading export on Polar Bears excluded from Polar Bear conference because he is a "skeptic" (shudder)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Interesting)
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a little disingenuous to say that his background is in physics and economics. His undergrad is in physics, that doesn't mean anything. He's had a career; what does it consist of? (No, I don't know the answer.) At least as an economist, he may well be on firm footing on the potential economic impact of hasty decisions.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:
Robert C. Balling Jr [sourcewatch.org] - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.
Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."
Robert M. Carter [sourcewatch.org] - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.
The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:1, Interesting)
If you're a Ph.D. student, then you of all people should know that there's really no such thing as a Ph.D. "in" something. You're either a Doctor of Philosophy, or you aren't. The degree means that you're qualified to carry out investigation and research in any "philosophical" field you choose. As noted by other posters, the quality of your work is what you're judged by.
It is very common for Ph.D.s to work and teach outside the field that was their original area of focus.
Re:The sole purpose of government is politics. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, it wasn't the Government that created the internet... oh wait, yes it was. If you can point to this great internet analogue that was squashed by the government, you might have SOME kind of credibility, otherwise it's yet more empty rhetoric. And never mind the transistor, mosfets, LSI, fiber optics, and cell phone technology invented by Bell labs with a majority of funding from the Government (what today's neocons would call 'pork'). The NIH (the major funding organization behind Bell Labs) is responsible for much of the medical breakthroughs in the last 60 years as well. And of course we don't need the CDC (heavy sarcasm). Oh, and of course I'd trust my family's clean drinking water and disease and chemical free food to the corporate sector as well, because you know they police themselves so well, as evidenced by Enron, Global Crossing, Haliburton, Qwest, Tyco, World Com, Bear-Sterns, Citigroup, etc., etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
And on Bush vs Obama on the subject of 'squashing dissent':
Bush:
1. Omitted DATA for 1000 years and mandated the insertion of qualifying words such as "potentially" and "may" that the result would have been to insert "uncertainty... where there is essentially none."
2. Demanded that data from a discredited study funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute be included in climate change reports.
3. Demanded that The elimination of the summary statementâ" noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change-that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment."
On the other hand:
Obama:
1. Despite the fact that Alan Carlin was no part of any group tasked with studying climate control, Obama allowed his unsolicited and unwarranted report to be analyzed and subjected to PEER REVIEW, and was subsequently REJECTED by his PEERS.
Yeah, that's the same exact thing.
The thing that should stand out to anyone is that Carlin claims in this "report": "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
This is complete and utter HORSESHIT.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ [nasa.gov]
I REALLY expect more from the /. crowd.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:3, Interesting)
He is an ECONOMIST for fuck's sake. That IS relevant.
Regardless, Real Climate [realclimate.org] looked into this last week. Much detail there, finishing with: "So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."
The usual "climate skeptic" bollocks. He has nothing new.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:3, Interesting)
He also claims in the report that quality of life of Americans has gone up, as have crop yields and that there are fewer annual deaths from heat stroke. While these all may be true, his attempt to connect them to global warming is nonsensical at best, and grossly stupid at worst.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion [newsminer.com]
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:2, Interesting)
Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate had basically the same response and, further, he bemoaned the lack of statistical analysis in Carlin's paper. This is the same Schmidt who trumpeted Hansen, Mann (both well known for creating fantasy stastical analysis) and, amazingly, Steig's paper on Antarctic warming, which has been shown to be a complete load of bunk!
If I had to choose between one view or the other, purely based on the integrity and intelligence of the proponents, I would choose the sceptics. The colder it gets, the more shrill the warmists are getting. This whole scare is one of the most sordid, ridiculous and idiotic episodes in the history of the Science.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:2, Interesting)
One does have to look at the broader context in situations like this.
First point, since it has some humor value, is that Carlin's field is economics. He is expert in the same studies and techniques as those wonderful quants who gave the financial world those marvelous risk management tools called "derivatives". Economics was nick-named "the dismal science" for a couple of reasons, one being a reference to the quality of the extrapolations that economists have used in their predictions.
More serious points: this news is presented to the world through the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It has a $3 million+ annual budget, and is supported by donations from ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Phillip Morris, and others. It is characterized as a "libertarian" think tank ideologically opposed to any government regulation of business conduct. It has taken an active role in advocating for "free-market environmentalism" where corporations and not governments would determine the best way to manage the environment. It has been a continuing, constant critic of global warming concerns. (See Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], also validation of primary source [exxonsecrets.org], also Google on "Competitive Enterprise Institute".)
WRT Alan Carlin himself: he has been in the US Civil Service for 38 years, so he is fully vested in one of the best retirement packages in the world, and he is at retirement age. His title is "Senior Operations Research Analyst" at the National Center for Environmental Economics of the EPA. He would be at the top of his pay scale at this point, and it is unlikely that continued Federal employment has anything to offer him that he would be interested in doing (a common theme through the papers he has published in the last few years shows a bias against the kinds of Federal protections that the Obama Administration is involved in setting up). It is not at all unlikely that he will soon start drawing his Federal pension and begin a second career in the private sector as a consultant with expertise on EPA matters, or as a staff person in a think tank not unlike CEI. (see synopsis of A. Carlin's career [epa.gov].)
WRT the emails that were sent to Carlin, that were then mysteriously leaked to the national media through CEI: Carlin attempted to inject his argument against a policy decision into the works after he would have known that the period for such commentary was closed. Further, he was acting out of his area of expertise, which is economics, by attempting a review of the recent literature of climate research papers. Further, and to me most telling, is that he admits that he has not formatted his work in accordance with EPA standards, nor is providing proper citations that would allow distinguishing between crap and peer reviewed papers. I see this clearly showing that he had an ulterior motive of monkeywrenching the process, since his past publications show that he knows very well how to write these kinds of papers. It looks very much like he knew his work would be rejected, planned on having it rejected, and planned on collecting the emails that he would receive afterward to use in the way that these emails have been used. (See the .pdf referred to in the article summary, and note that the 4 emails were cherry picked from a much longer body of correspondence.)
BTW, taken in context,the quote from Carlin's boss, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," takes on a very different meaning. What Carlin is being told is that discussion has moved on from what the science is to what the legal and societal implications are, and how to frame a policy that addresses those c