The EPA suppresses dissent and opinion, and apparently decides issues in advance of public comment

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/epa_logo_1.png?w=130&h=142http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/cei-logo-square.jpg

The EPA apparently doesn’t care about any negative comment of their GHG Endangerment findings, even internally, so the exercise in Democracy we did yesterday apparently was for naught.

The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

- Internal EPA email, March 17th, 2009

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has caught EPA administration red-handed in concealment of internal dissent as well as apparently proceeding with plans in advance.

From this PDF circulated today by CEI, here are the points:

EI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.

CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.

The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:

1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;

2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in
the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);

3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added);

4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating “ I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”

Mr. McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA’s proposed position. This raises several major issues.

A. Incompleteness of the Rulemaking Record: The end result of withholding Mr. Carlin’s study was to taint the Endangerment Proceeding by denying the public access to important agency information. Court rulings have made it abundantly clear that a rulemaking record should include both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976).

B. Prejudgment of the Outcome of the Endangerment Proceeding: The emails also suggest that EPA has prejudged the outcome of this proceeding, to the point where it arguably cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate the record before it. Courts have recognized “the danger that an agency, having reached a particular result, may become so committed to that result as to resist engaging in any genuine reconsideration of the issues.” Food Marketing Institute v. ICC, 587 F.2d 1285, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

C. Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty: Finally, the emails suggest that EPA’s extensive pronouncements about transparency and scientific honesty may just be rhetoric. Shortly before assuming office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared: “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Jan. 23, 2009, link. See also Administrator Jackson’s April 23 Memo to EPA Employees, “Transparency in EPA’s Operations”. These follow the President’s own January 21 memo to agency heads on “Transparency and Open Government”. And in an April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the President declared that, “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.

For these reasons, we submit that EPA should immediately make Mr. Carlin’s study public by entering it into the Endangerment docket, and that it should either extend or reopen the comment period in this proceeding to allow public responses to that study. It should do so, moreover, while publicly pledging that Mr. Carlin will suffer no adverse repercussions from agency personnel. Mr. Carlin is guilty of no wrongdoing, but the tenor of the emails described above suggests he may well have reason to fear reprisals.

Read the EPA internal emails, including photographs of the originals here.

Call your congressional representative. This is legally wrong and makes a mockery of the public comment process.

Tell them here: 202-224-3121.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

197 Responses to The EPA suppresses dissent and opinion, and apparently decides issues in advance of public comment

  1. Jack Green says:

    These people are dishonest and should be fired. This is an outrage. We are fast becoming an Iranian regime.

  2. tarpon says:

    WOW, shocked I tell you, just shocked.

    When the government starts lying to you about the basic premise for massive new taxes, what type of a government do you have?

    You expected to find truth? Science is going to be materially damaged in the eyes of the public because of this hoax.

  3. Methow Ken says:

    This is BEYOND outrageous !!
    I am calling my Congresswoman RIGHT NOW !!

    Come on, people:
    Let’s light up the Congressional switchboard:
    If this behavior by a (theoretically) objective agency of the Federal Government isn’t criminal, it should be.

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Hmmm. A bit of a can of worms this one. I can see colours (sorry – colors) being nailed to the mast in the e-mail from McGartland to Carlin on 17th March in the statement that: “You may have heard that our budget was cut by 66%.”

    Welcome to the real world!

  5. MattN says:

    Raise your hand if you’re surprised at this….

  6. Adam from Kansas says:

    So ‘We the People’ doesn’t even matter if it gets in the way of the green agenda? What kind of government is that.

    In other notes, the greenhouse effect diagrams need a good overhaul
    http://www.iceagenow.com/If_the_canary_is_still_singing_we_are_okay.htm

    CO2 is heavier than air according to old mine tours and thus the gas would be the most dense at sea level, plus as air gets thinner the higher you go, that means less CO2, there’s no ‘wall’ of CO2 trapping heat high up in the atmosphere like some GHG chart implies.

  7. hareynolds says:

    I would sincerely like to contact my Congressman (Culbertson, R-Texas) and Senators (Hutchinson and Cornyn, both R-Texas) but (a) I am sure that they already know about this and are on the correct side of the fence, and (b) in any case, they are essentially powerless in the face of the fillibuster-proof majorities loyal to Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid.

    I agree that we are indeed turning ourselves into a Banana Republic, but as in all democracies gone bad (remember the Weimar Republic) a majority has to VOTE FOR mindless oppression. Unfortunately, we get exactly the government that we deserve; heck, the government that some of our deluded fellow citizens have actually dreamed about.

    Perhaps the real culprits in this drama, e.g. the voters of Massachusetts, California, New York, and Nevada, just to name a few, should say a few mea culpas and write THEIR members of Congress.

  8. evanmjones says:

    Raise your hand if you’re surprised at this….

    Yes, I am surprised . . . that this came to light.

    Sounds as if there was a “canary” at the EPA. The early bird uncovers the can of worms.

  9. wws says:

    hope n’ change, people. Hope ‘n change.

  10. DaveE says:

    Nothing new here for the EPA!

    I hesitate to bring this up, but foregone conclusions is not exactly uncharted territory for the EPA.

    In their report on ETS, (second hand smoke), they twisted the rules to get the answer they wanted. (I am not going to debate whether or not it is even dangerous or not.)

    1) They used a form of analysis called a ‘meta-study’ (a collection of studies to enlarge the sample size.)

    2) they ‘cherry-picked’ the studies to include.

    Even after this they couldn’t get the required result, so…

    3) they reduced the CI to 90%

    Even so they couldn’t get the figures they really wanted, so…

    4) they declared an RR of 1.15 @ 90% as a class 1 carcinogen!

    5) their ruling was thrown out by the US supreme court.

    6) They appealed and won, not on the grounds the judge had indicted them but on the grounds that the courts had no jurisdiction.

    As I said, I’m not going to debate the rights & wrongs of ETS/SHS & even if you are of the view that it is harmful. does that justify falsifying the data?

    That is the kind of organisation you are dealing with!

    DaveE.

  11. Steven Hill says:

    Obama better look closly at Iran, Washington may be next…….

  12. DaveE says:

    Sorry, falsifying RESULTS, not data

    DaveE.

  13. Adam from Kansas says:

    Um, what’s the difference between these two images that should be the same?

    This image on the TAO info front page looks to be like El Nino trying to putter along.
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/sst_wind_anom_5day_ps32.gif&P2=900&P3=456&script=jsdisplay/scripts/biggif_startup.csh

    Meanwhile, this image which is supposedly the same other than the fact it compares with the previous year shows the supposed El Nino being very anemic in forming and isn’t getting much of anywhere
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/sst_sst_anom_5day_comp.gif

    Then is what seems to be even more bad news for NOAA pushing AGW the 20 degree C-depth anomalies seem to be almost the same, if not a little cooler in some places than in 2008
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/iso20_iso20_anom_5day_comp.gif

    Any reason the anomaly comparison image is different from the front page image? I don’t get it, are they trying to hide something?

  14. keith says:

    sounds like they are trying to muzzle their scientist from speaking on AGW.

  15. stumpy says:

    does this suprise anyone? the whole issue is a political one, no serious scientist would ever consider c02 as a pollutant!

  16. TomLama says:

    Why is anyone shocked about dishonesty in the AGW debate? This scam has been a fraud since its inception. What we are witnessing is a slow motion rape of our sensibilities, science, and industry. We are nothing more than “denialists” deserving of scorn, ridicule, imprisonment, or worse.
    The science be damned, the debate is over, the Ministry of Truth has spoken.
    Get used to it.

  17. If I was an American I would be realy mad at this one. Taxation without Representation. Wasn’t that what started your war for independance?

    On a funny note: I was in DC a couple of years back and saw a licence plate that said “Taxation without Representation”. Didn’t give any other context. As a non American, I didn’t immediatly see this as the cause for revolution, but as a State Motto (as in “Maryland: The State with Taxation without Representation).

  18. Jeff Id says:

    I’m so pissed now. Thanks for the article, I did a post and linked to it here.

    I’ve put up a post I’m not too sure people understand. It demonstrates the problems with calibration of proxy data for hockey sticks and shows how temps will always be unprecedented.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/histori-hockey-stick-pt-2/

    Michael Mann then admitted on RC to knowing he could pull any signal he wanted out of proxy data with his method.

    It’s all the same thing, advocates calling citizens advocates and offering solutions which also result in the same thing. Taking our money. I’m becoming a denier.

  19. David Ermer says:

    You can contact you congress weasel about this, but remember this isn’t their fault.

    What you need to do is talk to the people that keep electing these _______s. This is the fault of all of your neighbors, family, friends etc. Problems with our government won’t get fixed until the electorate starts acting in a responsible manner.

  20. Aaron says:

    I am profoundly discouraged by this development. Wondering if some reporter or news organization hungry for bureaucratic blood will pick this up and run. I do hope so.

  21. Philipe says:

    I don’t think it’s very useful to send comments to site like EPA. They have a political agenda anyway. They don’t care about science or facts. As a skeptic i think the most usefull is to advertise sites like yours. As more and more people will know the skeptic cause, i am sure we will win in the end.

  22. Ben says:

    I wonder what Hansen will say now that irrefutable proof has been presented that the Obama administration is actively muzzling its scientists, rather than his much-preached “muzzling”? A request to have your work reviewed is a good leap below being banned from speaking.

    Contacting the EPA and Congress apparently does nothing. I am going to skip straight to contacting the media and trying to build a public outcry.

  23. imapopulist says:

    Now that this has seen the light, I’ll bet the EPA Administration will go on the offensive and attack Mr. Carlin’s credibility and assassinate his character. Just wait and see the “horrible offenses” that he supposedly committed and the “shoddy work” he performed (this usually happens in spite of a history of good performance appraisals). If necessary the media will gladly share any accusations to discredit this individual. I hope not, but if it does happen it will be an absolute shame. Either way, I’ll bet someone at EPA has already crafted these “talking points” as well, just in case they need to use them.

  24. CAS says:

    Does this replace Hansen now as the “suppressed scientist”???

  25. Steve (Paris) says:

    Carlin’s website

    http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

    He has serious credentials

  26. gt says:

    Not sure about the timing of the issue though. It seems that the email dialogues between the 2 parties happened 3 months ago. Why do they disclose it now, one day after EPA closed the public commentary?

  27. Sean says:

    Spread the link above, news sites like hits, and will continue to write about anything that brings them traffic

  28. PaulH says:

    If the EPA had their facts correct, they might be forced to arrive at the opposite conclusion from where their biases led them in the first place.

    Fire. Them. All.

  29. Steve (Paris) says:

    After a little speed reading my guess is that Carlin poured cold water on the economics of cap n’ trade. I’d hazard the guess that he has an open mind on AGW; likes the science but needs to keep his job.

    His views will be played down coz he’s not a scientist but primarily an economist.

  30. David Segesta says:

    At the risk of sounding redundant, let me say this again: Our government is run by criminals. Once you accept that everything else falls in place.

  31. Leon Brozyna says:

    Obama’s EPA screws the whole country. Meanwhile, Drudge is more concerned with reporting that SC Governor Sanford cheated on his wife. If Drudge can’t get it right, what of the rest of the media?

  32. John F. Hultquist says:

    “. . . and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

    This shows a TRI-polar nature in our society. The statement is quite correct, I suspect, for a portion of folks want to believe in their new government and will consider dissension within the EPA as surprising and negative. Another portion believes the end justifies the means and so will not be turned aside by this inconvenience. The third group – colour (color) us skeptical – already have such a negative view of the government on this issue that it is not possible for this to increase our negativness.

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) needs to notify every news organization in the Nation and keep them informed. My congressional representatives are all sure of their position on such things and will not be persuaded by a few more e-mails. A National kerfuffle about this might cause some of them some embarrassment if they were not to speak out about this failure of democratic processes.

    The new administration is having its North Korean learning experience, and an Iranian moment – maybe this could be its CO2 moment. Hope so.

  33. Myron Mesecke says:

    The FCC does the same thing. Got caught being selective with the facts regarding interference caused by BPL, broadband over powerlines. Thank goodness for the American Radio Relay League (ham radio). Took them to court over it and the FCC was forced to release all the data. Not sure if the FCC has actually done that yet.

  34. Antonio San says:

    Next should we expect police enforcement seizing Climate realists’ blogs? After all this Climate Change business is becoming a state affair and usually states will use any means at their disposal to implement their policies.

  35. DaveE says:

    gt (13:59:53) :

    Not sure about the timing of the issue though. It seems that the email dialogues between the 2 parties happened 3 months ago. Why do they disclose it now, one day after EPA closed the public commentary?

    As the advert says, ‘simples’ he’s given them time to recant. That time is passed now!

    DaveE.

  36. Jack Hughes says:

    Morning students.

    This module is Group-Think 101.

  37. geo says:

    There must be some mistake. Everyone knows that only Republican administrations suppress inconvienent findings by career scientists, right? I confidently await the outrage and investigation by Congress.

  38. papertiger says:

    “I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

    I think of another impact of ignoring public comments. How about we vote the bums out. Barbara Boxer is the key Senate voice for the climate scam lobby.

    Vote Chuck Devore in 2010. That will be the loudest comment you can make on the climate scam in California. (http://www.chuckdevore.com/)
    Send Boxer back home to Marin county.
    Send the EPA a clear uniquivocal message of what you think.
    It’s the only way to be sure.

  39. hunter says:

    wow.
    We are so screwed.

  40. Paul revere says:

    welcome to the USSA!

  41. AEGeneral says:

    As with everything in this administration, the likely response will be, “This simply could not wait. The situation is so dire that we have to move forward as quickly as possible.”

  42. “You may have heard that our budget was cut by 66%.” – McGartland PhD – EPA

    Chart of EPA Funding Under Obama Administration

    Gee I guess the EPA did not get the Stimulus Memo…

    Yes I realize his department may have been cut back on, but with a doubling in budget one would expect his funding would remain intact a the very least.

    So does this mean this is actually “Bush’s Third Term” ? :)

  43. Tom Fuller says:

    Hi all,

    Anthony, I contacted EPA and received a very quick and (I think) fairly open response. Apparently CEI may have exaggerated hugely. EPA emailed this statement to me:

    “This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to
    openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These
    principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed
    Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were
    heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this instance,
    certain opinions were expressed by an individual who is not a scientist
    and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.
    Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this
    individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the
    proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his
    general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and
    considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and
    at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join
    a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to
    both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite
    speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that
    his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
    – EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy

  44. George Hebbard says:

    When Enron conspired with the Vice President of the United States to develop a program of Carbon emission credits similar to their lucrative SO2 trading scheme, they did so in total disregard of an internal Enron study/report that cast doubt on the AGW effects of CO2.
    Has anything changed?

    Incidently, THAt VP was a Democrat named Al Gore.

  45. Stephen Wilde says:

    Sorry chaps but we are seeing the end of representative democracy throughout the western world.

    The fact is that most voters are too busy getting on with their lives to make the effort required to second guesss the ‘establishment’.

    Many years ago the ‘establishment’ realised that allowing a decline in intellectual rigour in the education system was entirely to it’s own advantage.

    All that post World War 2 prosperity and freedom has rendered the average voter over confident and complacent about the preservation of the basic rules of a democratic system.

    The irony is that the process is being driven by all those 60s radicals who were such a noisy nuisance 50 years ago.

    No one ever guaranteed that the democratic experiment started by the UK 500 years ago and consolidated by the US Constitutuion would be a permanent phenomenon.

    We are seeing the end game for good or ill.

    Supra Governmental organisations such as the UN and the European Union are in the ascendant and will not be denied.

    The future will be determined by the extent to which the emerging world including China and India is prepared to go along with it.

    I suspect that the Orwellian vision of a world split into 3 major power blocs (possibly only 2) was not far off the mark.

  46. Tamara says:

    Of course, anyone who commented on the endangerment finding is now on a “list” somewhere. I’m probably on several. ;)

  47. CPT. Charles says:

    People, assume NOTHING! I just contacted my rep…House Minority Leader J. Boehner and gave the nice lady on the phone this piece. She actually called up the web page as we spoke.

    I suggested that the links provided could provide the basis for a nice floor speech.

    Will it do any good? Dunno, the vote is this Friday. Never the less, call anyway; the honest ones will listen, the crooks will probably either [A] hang up on you, or [B] give you a verbal ‘pat on the head’ and send you on your way.

    At any rate, remember this BS when 2010 comes around.

  48. don't tarp me bro says:

    robert wood posted the link this morning
    I referred to it 2 hours later. Glad to see it up as a new topic.
    I don’t know how long it was before CEI found the e-mails. this is an old EPA issue but only recently uncovered.

  49. KW says:

    I do wonder…are the comments only for the sake of humoring people’s opinions?

    I suppose it is nice and all…but it seems to be rather unneccesary and deceiving to think they would ever have any influence on the outcome of the policies made.

  50. Retired BChe says:

    I tried to do my part today by calling my Congressman About the Waxman-Markey energy bill, but doubt it will slow down the steamroller. The people in our government are obviously lying to us about a number of issues, for political reasons. It’s too bad more evidence about this kind of chicanery is not revealed for the public to see. This is not the kind of “transparency” that the public thought they were buying. Even a technical society, the American Chemical Society’s publication, “Chemical & Engineering News” has come out with an editorial referring to us skeptics as “CCD’s”, meaning “climate change deniers” in a sarcastic attempt to link us with those who deny the Holocaust. I have always believed that truth will triumph eventually, but we may have to suffer a great deal before it does!

  51. starzmom says:

    I have just called my congressman’s office. The intern I spoke with didn’t have a clue, said no one in the office is aware of any of the climate change issues, other than the congressman will be voting on Friday, (probably for the bill–he’s a Democrat), but he hasn’t read the bill and neither had anyone in the office.

    They know nothing about the EPA rulemaking, either. I told him it was a criminal act to suppress pertinent information in the rulemaking. I just got another clueless answer.

    All I can say is keep calling, keep pestering, make them pay some attention.

  52. Mark says:

    Call me a nutcase but I think most of these democrats (and some republicans) are working for global interests instead of national interests. I base this on many of the AGW documents I’ve read from various prestigious left wing think tanks and NGO’s and from various UN websites.

    From what I’ve read, I get the strong impression that the end goals are “unprecedented” transfers of wealth to developing nations as well as technology that US taxpayers will paying for. The current phrase I’m coming across is “contraction and convergence” where the “contraction” is the lowering of CO2 emissions (and with it to a degree, the economy), and the “convergence” is the per-capita GDP and incomes of the worlds nations coming together (or equalizing). “Convergence” also refers to income coming together [i]within[/i] nations.

  53. kurt says:

    I think EPA is going to have some trouble over this. My recollection is that the EPA rulemaking is not based on its own research or evaluation of the scientifc literature, but instead is based only on the IPCC and CCSP reports. It doesn’t look like CEI got a hold of the actual document that Alan Carlin prepared, but based on the e-mails it probably contained a discussion of various scientific papers and studies that conflicted with the findings of those two reports, and that the author thought should be made a part of the record. It also seems to indicate that someone in the EPA wanted to independently form their own conclusions about the weight of the scientific literature as to endangerment, but that higher-management torpedoed that idea.

    One of the issues the EPA invited comment on was whether or not it was appropriate for them to promulgate rules based exclusively on findings and research of other entities, e.g. the IPCC. The reason this e-mail exchange is so damaging is that it at least appears to show that EPA was made aware of scientific research that conflicted with those reports and which were either (1) not available to the IPCC and CCSP; (2) not considered by those report; or (3) both.

    The EPA began this exercise on the assumption that the IPCC essentially did all their work for them, and that they could use someone else’s conclusions as a rational basis for an endangerment finding, without going through the time-consuming process of conducting its own review of the credibility of the scientific literature. Even setting aside the question of pre-judgment, which the CEI is stressing, the fact that the EPA shunted this document aside highlights the fact that the EPA has in essence abdicated to other agencies (one of which isn’t even a US agency) its own responsibility to determine the factual issue of endangerment. What it wants is not only to rely upon the compilation of scientific data from the IPCC but also rely upon the conclusions of the IPCC (e.g. 98% confidence that most of the temperature increase in recent decades is from CO2) so that EPA doesn’t have to go through and evaluate all the scientific literature referenced by the IPCC report, which would take years.

    In my opinion, even were the EPA to do what the CEI asks, e.g. extend the public comment and add the document to the administrative record, they nonetheless have handed a stockpile of ammo to anyone who wants to challenge the finding in court on the basis that the EPA cannot avoid its own responsibility to both collect its own scientific record and make its own independent judgments as to the weight of that record. In other words, the conclusions the IPCC drew from its own review of the scientific literature is not a factaal basis from which the EPA can support an endangerment finding.

  54. Leon Brozyna says:

    And here’s another thought. Maybe the reason the Obama Administration has been low-key in its support of Waxman-Markey is that they knew they had this EPA process waiting in the wings. They’d let Congressional Dems muck it all up, then spring EPA’s ruling and before we know it we’ll have Enron II and Al Gore rolling in the dough.

  55. papertiger says:

    “I tried to do my part today by calling my Congressman About the Waxman-Markey energy bill, but doubt it will slow down the steamroller. ” - Retired BChe.

    “I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.” – James T. Kirk, Admiral Star Fleet United Federation of Planets.

  56. John M says:

    Retired BChe (14:49:15) :

    I noticed the same editorial. Of course the staff of CE&N and ACS in general are so “inside the beltway” that they’ve completely lost touch with most of their non-academic clientele. Add to that the fact that most of the CE&N never got over not getting that dream job with the Washington Post, and we’ve got just a classic case of people opining using other people’s money.

    But I did think of sending a letter refering to “anthropogenic global warming alarmists (AGWAs)”, but it turned out the idea had already been taken.

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming-skeptics-compared-to.html

    Pity, there’s a perfect picture of an AGWA here.

    http://tl.pandapedia.com/wiki/Agwas

  57. Another example of how the EPA does not represent sound scientific achievement or the good of mankind. Our progress cannot continue if science is suppressed in favor of Big Oil interests to defraud the consumer. See altfuels.us for other expamples of EPA tactics.

  58. Tom in Florida says:

    Tom Fuller (14:33:32) : “Anthony, I contacted EPA and received a very quick and (I think) fairly open response. Apparently CEI may have exaggerated hugely. EPA emailed this statement to me:”

    What reason do you have for believing the “mouthpiece” of an agency that is accused of being up to dirty tricks? This person was just passing on a canned response. See comments above by imapopulist (13:48:35) :

  59. Chris V. says:

    Ummm… Carlin is an economist with EPA, not a scientist.

    His CV lists exactly zero publications in meteorology, atmospheric physics… or any scientific field whatsoever.

    While he is certainly qualified to comment on things like costs vs benefits of regulating CO2, he has absolutely no qualifications to be commenting on the underlying science (which is what he appears to have done).

  60. don't tarp me bro says:

    KW (14:45:44) :

    “I do wonder…are the comments only for the sake of humoring people’s opinions?”

    Acting like as if they care!!!

    It is coming clear that we will neverdo away with CO2 output. Output from farm equipment and automotive will be bad and output from pets and democrats will be good. CO2 out put will be graded regarding it’s source. CO2 produced in building rail is clean but for building a nuclear plant is dirty. 572 pounds of paper for my annual NYT subscription is good. 572 lbs of firewood for my cabin is dirty.

  61. Jim Papsdorf says:

    Before we get too excited re this apparent “suppression” of Mr. Carlin’s paper, be advised that Mr. Carlin is STRONGLY in the AGW camp. His 2007 paper “Risky Gamble” talks about the difficulties of adopting a single approach to reducing GHG and strongly encourages looking at Geoengineering to effect Solar Radiation Management. [ ERD=Exclusive Regulatory DeCarbonization or Cap and Trade]:

    “Risky Gamble

    Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may be well intentioned and even
    helpful. But as the sole strategy for climate change control it is nevertheless
    inflexible, expensive, risky, and politically unrealistic, according to this government economist. Such a strategy could even make matters worse.
    Fortunately, there is a better solution.
    ALAN CARLIN

    {Here it is }

    “…Fortunately, there is an alternative to relying on ERD, although it is almost never mentioned by environmentalists and not widely known, much less understood, by the public — solar radiation management, sometimes called stratospheric geoengineering or engineered climate selection. An extensive review of management strategies and currently available alternative technologies for global climate control gives the inescapable conclusion that SRM is the most effective and efficient first step toward solving most of the problems that ERD supporters are concerned about, quickly and easily………

    So it is likely that his contribution may include a paper on SRM which does not fit the current thrust of the Gore/Obama/Goldman Sachs coalition.

    [The above title and quote are taken from the Carlin website:
    http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

  62. April E. Coggins says:

    Chris V. (15:17:13) : It’s very easy to be considered a legitimate scientist among the global warming crowd. No education or diploma required. All one has to do is to proclaim that CO2 is causing the earth to warm and unless the people surrender all their money and freedom to the government, everyone will die. Voila! You are now considered a legitimate scientist worthy of quotation in every media outlet worldwide.

  63. Ray says:

    That did not take too long for someone to write an article to try to debunk the emails and memo… http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/

    Looks like the story is being burried in the Google News search. Just an hour ago you could find it by only putting in EPA… but now you have to be much more specific to find it.

  64. Ray says:

    NOTE: This could be a repost… the original did not appear!

    That did not take too long for someone to write an article to try to debunk the emails and memo… http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/

    Looks like the story is being burried in the Google News search. Just an hour ago you could find it by only putting in EPA… but now you have to be much more specific to find it.

  65. Billwinkle says:

    The true revolutionary will never waiver. If the evidence disagrees with the movement, they will change the evidence, not the policy.

    NOAA, IPCC and now EPA – it is a sign of our times that I trust Vince, the Sham Wow guy, more than I trust the preeminent scientists who guard our truth.

  66. F. Ross says:

    This is Ruckelshaus and DDT re-visited: to hell with science, facts, and the recommendations of one’s staff.

    For all the good it will do I did contact my representative who is about as far left as it is possible to be.

    Those above who have noted that this is just one more example of the demise of our republic are correct.

  67. 3x2 says:

    I wish I could feign surprise at this news. I live in the UK though, so I just can’t. One hope for those of you in the US is that you get to have a say in the first place and that eventually this story could end up decided in a public Court.

    Over here (UK) we have had to watch this same corrupt process from the side lines, no voice, no recourse and no rules of engagement. Ministers here spout the party line and quietly hand out the Carbon Candy. They hand it to friends on the Carbon “advisory” board and “donors” from the “Carbon Market”. Only when people eventually see the scam for what it is will there be a reaction.

    How exactly did we get from six tenths of a degree “statistical discrepancy” over one hundred years to creating a “fresh air market” worth several Trillion dollars a year worldwide to those in the loop? I’m not one for “tinfoil hats” but I am certainly recommending “aluminium hair nets” to anybody that wants one.

    What exactly do the people involving themselves in this scam, without actually profiting, think is going to happen when the general population wake up both to the scale of the robbery and the real statistics relating to hypothermia deaths in the North?

    UHI statistical tenths of a degree combined with Hansen Amplifying Pivot Mathematics, 2D energy transfer equations in a theoretical environment, Mannomatic hockey stick climate history re-writes, GC models that fail every test, no place on Earth left for warming to hide and the ever changing goal posts – AGW has been dead in the SST ocean for some time now.

    In the US you have boiling Tar and Feathers. Here in the UK we have scaffold erected in front of The Banqueting House. I have said it before and I mean it – I will throw Guardian readers on the fire before I freeze to death quietly in my old age. I would ask all those that tow the “we might as well go with the flow” line to think long and hard about what they are getting themselves involved in.

    AGW induced climate catastrophe has long been a religious fantasy not a scientific hypothesis, profit from it at your peril. You cannot steal the lives of a huge number of people together with trillions of dollars in “tax” without there being a day of reckoning.

  68. Ray says:

    Jim Papsdorf (15:28:35) :

    it seems that Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s general counsel, said Carlin’s work cites research showing global warming has been caused by ocean and solar cycles, not by human-caused emissions. Kazman refused to share the document.

    see: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/

  69. Bobby Lane says:

    The sad thing is that I expected this from the people who surround Obama; however, I did not expect them to get caught like this. But it’s not just him either of course. There is blame enough for all in the government who cannot resist, or who can find a way to justify, grabbing power over ordinary Americans’ lives in the name of public safety. He is just a mouth piece and that’s it.

    But I’m just waiting for the government to come up with this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety

  70. Robert Wood says:

    The link to The Examiner article points to the EPA countering by saying it was open and previously published and etcetera. Spin at full revs; but the headline is out there; that will be difficult to erase.

    Also, it doesn’t address the most damning part, the actual content of the e-mails which clearly indicate that the ruling on endangerment had already been decided months ago and that his input was “not helping”, therefore it had been canned. Now, go work on something else, stupid. Clearly, also, the puiblic input would be ignored for the previously decided outcome.

  71. kurt says:

    “Chris V. (15:17:13) :

    Ummm… Carlin is an economist with EPA, not a scientist.

    His CV lists exactly zero publications in meteorology, atmospheric physics… or any scientific field whatsoever.

    While he is certainly qualified to comment on things like costs vs benefits of regulating CO2, he has absolutely no qualifications to be commenting on the underlying science (which is what he appears to have done).”

    Be careful about this. First, for all we know, he was submitting research on the economic projections that computer models use to project future emissions, hence future climate. Economic studies were also used in the IPCC report to assess damage caused by climate change. Many of the lead authors of the IPCC report are mathemeticians or modelers as opposed to scientists, yet their word is treated as gospel.

    Economists can be very intelligent people. I’d hesitate before claiming that an econmist isn’t qualified to understand research papers involving matehmatical models, or even qualified to understand or comment on say, radiative transfer.

    More importantly, the e-mail exchange seems to indicate that whatever he was proposing to submit with respect to the endangerment finding could have been forwarded on, but wasn’t because a decision had been made to go forward, even though the deadline hadn’t yet passed. I’m assuming that this deadline was for the EPA’s preliminary finding of endangerment which in turn triggered the public comment period.

    One very interesting part of the e-mail exchange was at the end when Carlin was told that the endangerment finding was not a “criteria document” and hence his comments weren’t relevant at that stage of the process. This refers to “criteria pollutants” for which the EPA sets concentration limits for air pollution, e.g. ozone, particulates, etc. As part of the Clean Air Act requirements, EPA must periodically assess the current state of scientific data on what concentrations of criteria pollutants are hazardous. I take this exchange as indicating that the EPA is basing its endangerment findings solely on the conclusions of the IPCC and other selective reports of other agencies (see my post above), but this guy Carlin has presented data that was more recent than the respective cut-off dates for scientific papers to be sumbitted prior to writing those reports. The e-mails seem to suggest that the EPA is taking the position that they are under no obligation to consider current scientific data before making an endangerment finding based on the IPCC report.

  72. kurt says:

    Just as a follow-up to my last post, apparently Carlin has a degree in Physics and a Masters in Economics. By education, anyway, he appears at least as qualified as mant who write the IPCC report.

  73. Micajah says:

    When Hansen claimed to have been “muzzled” by the Bush administration, all the news media trumpeted the allegation and most treated it as true. Will Alan Carlin’s obvious “muzzling” be noticed in any of the major news media? The left is already claiming there is nothing to it:
    http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/
    That’s the only “hit” by Google news for “Alan Carlin EPA” right now.

  74. Robert Wood says:

    kurt (15:06:00) :

    It also indicates that at least one person in the EPA is not on The Team.

    I am sure the internal witch hunt is on!

  75. Phil Nizialek says:

    Has anyone checked out The Examiner article linked by Ray at 13:40:09? The author claims to have spoken to a rep from the EPA who appears to have an explanation for this espisode. It’s worth a read, and a little further digging before we all jump to conclusions here.

  76. Paddy says:

    I sent the following e-mail to my Congressman, Jay Inslee (D-WA):

    “My prediction is that you will join the unemployed on December 31, 2010 if you vote in favor of Waxman-Markey or any bill that imposes cap and trade, a direct tax on carbon or any other form of emissions trading scheme, or if you vote in favor of any bill that directly or indirectly establishes a single-payer national health care system.”

    Success will come only if enough democrats and republicans in Congress who favor these measures believe my prediction. Stop writing comments here and let your Congressmen know your views. The only thing they fear is loosing an election or getting caught in some form of a pay to play scheme.

  77. WestHoustonGeo says:

    If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations.
    I do not intend to leave my city, however.

  78. Dave L says:

    I spent the better part of a week researching and composing 3 separate comments to EPA (each from a different perspective). Now I find out my efforts were in vain. A great EVIL has infiltrated the leadership positions of our country.

  79. DR says:

    Folks, the fix is in and there’s nothing that can be done. Obama is ramrodding all these things through because he knows in 2010 people will be fed up. However, none of this can be reversed once enacted. The electorate made their bed and will have to sleep in it; we’re going to be poorer and have less freedom one year from now, get used to it.

    BTW Anthony, Dana Rohrabacher mentioned you in a speech last night on the House floor.

  80. SunSword says:

    Look. Why would anyone be surprised? The American public by and large is poorly educated by the people who had the lowest ACT/SAT scores to get into university, and who are predominantly not very bright. The understanding of science by the American public is quite low.

    The worldview of most Americans is based on television, celebrity magazines, and sports. Therefore they merely assume that people with credentials know what they are talking about, and assume that pretty talking heads communicate what people with credentials have agreed upon. You know, “consensus”.

    So the fix is in and the aristocracy has determined how to pass massive tax increases, by selling it as “saving the children” from the future of massive ecological collapse caused by the evils of capitalism.

    The frogs will be cooked slowly but they will be cooked.

  81. PaddikJ says:

    hareynolds (13:11:12) :

    I believe the actual quote, by Henrik Ibson, was “People usually have whatever form of government they deserve.”

    Tom Fuller (14:33:32) :

    In passing along verbatim that hastily cobbled-together compendium of canned bureaucratic talking-points, I assume your intention was irony? As for “the many opportunities,” I’d be interested to hear Carlin’s take. As long as you’re following this, why don’t you ask him?

    Jim Papsdorf (15:28:35) :

    If Mr. Carlin has floated the adaptation & mitigation ideas you mention, then he is NOT STRONGLY in the AGW camp. The eco-evangelicals are utterly hostile to any engineering/adaptive strategies, or any solutions that threaten their ecotopian fantasies. In fact, the entire AGW myth was simply an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it trump card designed to force the issue. But it looks like they over-played their hand. If there’s a silver lining to all this, it’s that the greens will be discredited for possibly an entire generation.

    However, Carlin’s ideas do reveal an Economist’s outlook, in that he’s considering effective, least-cost solutions based on pragmatism and not eco-fantasies.

    This EPA kerfuffle is simply the latest in the sad debasement of Science by scientists, but now is not the time for weary cynicism – the AGW card-castle is trembling in the breeze and we can help hasten its collapse. Of course I will call and write my Congresscritters and demand some action, but maybe Anthony or others know some columnists who would love to shine a light on some intra-agency dirty politics? Didn’t WUWT feature a George Will column recently? This sounds like something he’d love.

  82. Sonicfrog says:

    Everyone needs to take a step back.

    There are two issues here:

    A) The undercutting of the process to allow public input in decision making, and

    B) Squelching of scientific descent within the EPA.

    So far, the evidence for option A) looks pretty damning. I wouldn’t be surprised if the EPA’s story changes as much as Mark Sanford’s has. As far as option B) goes, sorry guys, but I’m skeptical. Why hasn’t CEI produced the doc in question? If we’re going to be advocates for openness, than that standard goes both ways.

  83. Ron de Haan says:

    [snip--please follow instructions concerning cutting and pasting ~ ctm]

  84. matt v. says:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-terence-corcoran-decision-based-evidence-making.aspx

    Sounds like Terence Corcoran of the Toronto National Post was right about the kind of decision making that is taking place in Washington.

    This all sounds kind of familiar. The Iraqi war was decided first and then the evidence was picked to match the policy.

    Was the demonizing of fossil fuels decided first and global warming and demonizing of carbon dioxide invented to match the policy?

  85. Ron de Haan says:

    [snip--please follow instructions concerning cutting and pasting ~ ctm]

  86. Nasif Nahle says:

    Let me give my opinion on this issue; science has been invaded and corrupted by politics and false philosophies that have flown away from science and reason. The real philosophy of science does not allow dogmatism and senselessness.

    I can offer a well done investigation, with quite realistic results based on careful observations of real phenomena and/or experimentation; however, it would be rejected if it is not following the mainstream chosen by the editorial board of the publication, or if I have not published a paper in any of their “reliable” magazines, or if I am demonstrating that which they are saying is not true.

    Whatever contradicts their viewpoint is rejected without any consideration, understanding for reliability the fact that the editors of such or that magazine belongs to the same academy or way of thought. I have read stupid articles in Science Magazine which have passed the peer review just because they mention somewhere that humans are changing the climate on Earth.

    There is no chance of publishing in any “chief” scientific magazine because at the first signal from the article of being on the side which is opposed to their ideology, it will be rejected. That is the reason by which many scientists have opted for publishing in the Internet. Any publication in the Internet is valid if it has been submitted to impartial, not biased peer review. There is an organization called “Scientists Without Borders” to which the accepted members can ask for help on any problem related with science, including the peer reviews of papers by well known scientist from the whole world. However, they don’t accept any peer reviewed paper if it has not passed under the scrutiny of the mainstream.

    You can follow unerringly a procedure taken from a book of physics using magnitudes which had been derived from your own measurements and experiments and they will not accept your results just because they are out of their ideology or just because their reviewers did not review your paper. At this pace, there will not be more scientists on this world except AGWers, even those who have never acquired a degree in sciences.

    Yes, the world is changing; a dark era has been progressing since 1890. They are destroying science. Ecology is a branch of biology; ecology is a very beautiful factual science… They have converted it into a bunch of lies and assumptions. They have shifted from the real world to a mythical world.

    NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc. will never fly again on the field of science and reason. Who could believe that Hansen was really arrested? Hansen has always played the role of being a martyr of the system. Just remember.

    Thanks for reading…

  87. James F. Evans says:

    “Suppression”

    That would never happen…chuckle…chuckle…

  88. deadwood says:

    If the administration had been honest in its statements regarding science, ideology and policy, it would have been a first for environmental activists.

    If your congressman or senator is a democrat write, phone, email as many times as you can to try an dissuade them from supporting the EPA finding or cap and trade.

    If they are republican do the same, but it won’t make a difference, because their votes are not relevant. This fight has been between democrats since Jan 2009.

  89. realitycheck says:

    Welcome to the USSA comrades…

    Way too many bills are being rushed through by this regime without 1) due diligence or facts to back them up, or 2) a normal period for deliberation and debate. It is worrying that apparently most of our local congressmen and congresswomen (and therefore a good section of the general public) are completely oblivious to what is being signed into law in Washington.

    Apparently democracy is going the way of climate science here – to the ignorant and naive it looks like democracy (science), but get too close and you realize it is simply an empty cardboard shell painted to look like democracy (science).

    This really is very concerning.

  90. Tom G(ologist) says:

    If you have not sent your e-mails off to Senate/congress, include a request that Lisa Jackson, Administrator of EPA be removed from office. This is VERY typical of her. I do a lot of work in the environmental industry in New Jersey where she was the head of the NJ DEP before being kicked upstairs. Well, just before here elevation she was trying her damnedest to wrest complete control of the environmental industry into government hands. Her proposals to tghe legislature would have destroyed the entire multi-billion dollar per year professional scientist/engineer industry and simply required industry in the state to do whatever she and her stooges in the DEP wanted them to. NJ lucked out because it would have caused a mass exodus of businesses.

    She is a command and control viper to the core and she will go to congress to testify shrilly about the endangerment.

    Tom

  91. Curiousgeorge says:

    Thanks for posting this. I’ve sent it along to some friends, but as many others here have noted the horse seems to have left the barn with the bill being voted on tomorrow.

    An observation: The ancient Roman Empire knew that the only things required to stay in power was to keep the military occupied abroad, and the populace entertained. Unfortunately those conditions only last until the military gets sufficiently pissed, and the population gets bored.

  92. Lance says:

    Nothing to see here folks, move along, everything is alright….yes, i can see Pinokio nose…..

    the lies get bigger and these agencies love it

    I’m sick of these people…

  93. crosspatch says:

    A whole new “culture of corruption” is born.

  94. AEGeneral says:

    Phil Nizialek (16:26:45) :

    Has anyone checked out The Examiner article linked by Ray at 13:40:09?

    A portion of it has been striken.

    And as someone else said, it seems to miss the mark anyways.

  95. J.Hansford says:

    I get the feeling that the EPA will get away with this. Why?

    Because they will simply ignore the CEI demands, while the Media true to form, will report nothing….

    It is now, “Too Big to Fail”, is the expression I’ve heard used as the general excuse for Government intervention.

    The Great Silence continues. “The Debate is over.” “The Science is Settled.”

    The Vanguard of the Neo Socialist revolution are kicking our butts and most of us have little idea….. It is no longer in the name of saving the Worker, but rather, In the name of saving the planet…. The ideology is still the same. The methodology is still the same.

    Sounds depressing? Well the good news is…… They’ll run out of “our” money before they have enough political impetus to fulfill their ambitions.

    Then there will be plenty of opportunity for people of charisma on both sides, to wield a mass of angry mallable people.

    …. it’s nothing new. This road has been trod many times before. But I have a nagging feeling they are better at this than we are…. and as before, Socialism will win its victory, so that they may attain failure for us all. Once again.

  96. anonymous says:

    Folks, I work at EPA and am unfortunate enough to actually know exactly what happened. Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal. The claim that he is simply an economist is a deep disservice to Alan and is patently false. Further, the work group refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” – suggesting they won’t be able to evaluate the public comments either. Notably, others at EPA agree with Alan’s analysis which EPA will make public (so they say). If they actually release the report Alan sent forward, and don’t take his extremely critical statements out, it will embarrass the Agency badly. That will be a shame, but it is what the Agency has earned for itself.

    I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

    This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.

    REPLY: Doing a quick Google Search on the email he provided, I can vouch for the claim of this poster working with the EPA – Anthony

  97. evanmjones says:

    So much for the post-revelation spin.

    This is very revealing.

  98. realitycheck says:

    Re: SunSword (16:59:02) :

    No truer words have ever been written on this blog…

    Well said.

  99. ohioholic says:

    wws (13:13:11) :

    “hope n’ change, people. Hope ‘n change.”

    As in, I hope you’ve got some change, because you will be needing it.

  100. Tom Fuller says:

    Hi all,

    In regards to the article I published today, I’d like to add a few points. First, if you read any of my other articles, such as those on the report published last week, it should be obvious that I’m not exactly ready to be led by the nose. I linked to Anthony’s article here because I trust him and this site. I still do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did create an impression of Alan as a skeptic who could not get his opinion heard within the EPA. I’ve seen pretty convincing evidence that he not only got his opinion heard, he got some of it into the Endangerment report. It also became quickly evident that he is not a skeptic at all.

    I contacted the EPA this morning and received an email response from them that seemed relevant–and open. I contacted the CEI and received nothing.

    My article is not about the commenting process regarding the EPA’s finding of Endangerment. When I do write one about it, it will be as honest as I know how to make it. My article started off being about one man who couldn’t get heard within the agency. It ended up being about being played by the CEI.

    I sincerely doubt if the EPA will cover itself with glory during the evaluation of everybody’s comments. But I have to say I think they did okay today. I don’t believe they shut Alan down. I’d like to know how the CEI got hold of that email exchange–they’re not the first people I would think of to send this kind of email, and it doesn’t sound like the organisation that would come first to Alan–he’s very committed to the activist side.

    I’m a liberal Democrat who happens to lean towards the skeptic arguments regarding AGW. It will never be a completely comfortable fit for me amongst many of you. But I am trying to be an honest commentator on the facts. I’m a big boy and can handle criticism, but read some of what I’ve written first.

    Reply: Tom, look at the post from anonymous five posts up. Hopefully it gives you some indications of other questions you might ask. I don’t think the poster will want to forward their identity to you, but I have also searched the net and have confirmed that person is in a role which gives him access to everything he has stipulated. And of course you are welcome here. ~ charles the moderator

  101. RoyFOMR says:

    Oh dear! There’s no winners in this sorry game, just a long train of potential losers. The initial, environmental victories, valiantly won by Josephine and Napoleon, that inspired us, have crumbled into an Orwellian nightmare.
    Some environmentalists are more equal than others-The debate is over-Everyone agrees!
    Pshaw, this is Fascism. Pure-Simple- and cynical.Forget the Honeyed principles, see past the appeal to our better natures that make us think we must join forces with the appealers to secure our futures. They have only their self-interests in mind.
    Warmists and denialists alike- take a step back – count to ten and consider this. Are we so different? Hands up those- and forget our differences, for the moment, who believe that life will be better, if we ban discourse and debate.
    The matters of detail we disagree with- yes that’s very clear- well, let’s worry about that later.
    But, and this is critical for all our futures, if you believe in a democracy that honors and allows both support for dissension and freedom of expression – irrespective of your belief or otherwise, wrt AGW/ACC then call a halt to the methods employed by agents, funded by your cash.
    God help us when the US elects a government with a 99% majority!

  102. Joe Papp says:

    Just remember: THUGS are THUGS.

    IT doesn’t really matter if they wield a batton, a rifle or a PEN.

    THUGS are THUGS.

    The EPA, because of their power, are THUGS.

    And if anyone doesn’t understand what a THUG is, look up Thugge

    for example here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee#Religion_and_Thuggee

    And remember, they were brutal killers.

    Joe

  103. deadwood says:

    anonymous (17:51:36) :

    Thank you for you candor and for your reference to retaliation.

    Its an important reminder that those in government service who don’t follow the party line on climate “science” risk a lot to speak out.

    This needs to be broadcast widely.

  104. Gary says:

    Just what did everybody think “Yes We Can” actually meant?

    Oh you poor naive babies.

    Sorry for the snark. Sometimes there’s nothing else (that’s legal) left to do.

  105. anonymous says:

    Re: Tom Fuller (18:08:13) :

    I respect Tom’s willingness to listen to both sides in this matter. He simply is not privy to the facts. Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple. The arguments were ignored for lack of expertise in climate science. Indeed, when an investigation was done to determine how many full time equivalents (bureaucratise for “people”) EPA has with actual first hand knowledge on how to use the kind of GCMs upon which the IPCC relied, the answer was half a person (a person half time). I’m not sure, but I don’t think that person was actually on the work group. I don’t recall seeing his name on it, in any case.

    Tom, there are going to be a lot of questions about this transaction. I am not permitted to give details, but I expect Congressional inquiries will force most of the facts out. If they don’t, then I don’t really know what to say.

    I’m prepared to go on background on this if you are serious about finding out the facts.

    Reply: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.

  106. anonymous says:

    Re: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.

    Only after Tom publically promises anonymity.

    Reply: Ok ~ ctm

  107. Wade says:

    This surprises me about as much as the sun coming up tomorrow.

  108. Folks, from an island in the Pacific, I can see at least a couple of people who may just be in need of a Fighting Fund real soon. After all, a 66% budget cut and a successful EPA process are most easily simultaneously achieved by firing the whistle-blowers (publicly regretfully, natch).

  109. J. Peden says:

    “…the EPA cannot avoid its own responsibility to both collect its own scientific record and make its own independent judgments as to the weight of that record. In other words, the conclusions the IPCC drew from its own review of the scientific literature is not a factaal basis from which the EPA can support an endangerment finding.”

    Yes, I tried to make that clear to the EPA during the previous round of comments, specifically focusing on the fact that Global Warming has not yet been scientifically proven to be a net disease by anyone, nor has the ipcc or anyone else shown that the alleged cure to the alleged disease would not be worse than the alleged disease, except for the “rubber meets the road” assessments and actions of India and China which do judge that the “cure” will certainly be worse than the “disease”.

    I tried to emphasize that its the EPA’s responsibility to make these as yet undone assessments itself for U.S. citizens, necessarily involving a complete examination of the benefits of Global warming and the detriments of reversing fossil fuel use, and that “People will remember”.

    Not that the EPA is going to listen to me, but based upon their own hallowed propaganda mechanisms maybe something will seep in anyway, at least if they actually do read the comments.

  110. Sandy says:

    Anonymous, thank you for putting the truth above your personal convenience. Incompetent bureaucrats must learn that bluster and bullying may seem to work in the short term, but they will be exposed.
    Exposing incompetence and waste in Government is what we elect politicians for, but they have become part of the problem. Will the internet take up the slack?

  111. Richard Patton says:

    calling Congress is not going to do any good-see my experience in the comments on “Pushing back Waxman-Markly”. The only thing that is going to do any good is to bring legal action for their violation of the law.

  112. MikeE says:

    Im not from the states, and have a limited knowledge of the political workings of youre country… but this certainly is a lil reminiscent of that Simpsons movie. As Reiner Wolfcastle so eloquently put it… “Im here to lead! Not to read!” ;-)

  113. kurt says:

    “Tom Fuller (18:08:13) :

    Hi all,

    In regards to the article I published today, I’d like to add a few points. First, if you read any of my other articles, such as those on the report published last week, it should be obvious that I’m not exactly ready to be led by the nose.”

    I agree. I’ve read a couple of your articles and found them to be pretty objective, which is a rarity on both sides of the debate on global warming. Having said that, I’m not sure that I would have been as accepting of the EPA response to this issue, which you posted in your article. If you parse through it carefully, they never state that the particular paper that was the subject of the e-mails in the CEI submission was given to the working group doing the endangerment files. In fact, one e-mail itself flatly says that it wasn’t. Stating that he was allowed to attend seminars or that his “general views” were allowed to be heard inside and outside the agency misses the point. He wanted to submit a document to be entered into the agency factual record, after which not only would that document be available to the public for comment, but also be a part of the record by which a court could ultimately review the EPA’s decision. As plainly evidenced by an e-mail, his supervisor sat on the document until after the deadline, the next day saying that he didn’t submit it because the EPA and the Administration had already decided on going forward with an endangerment finding, and strongly implying that the decision to not forward the document was made because it would run counter to that decision. It’s that last e-mail that I have a very hard time rationalizing away.

  114. oakgeo says:

    I believe anonymous, but it can only be a belief for now, not proof. Understandably, anonymous’ own self-preservation means that only an official inquiry will disclose what he knows. Until that time, his comments are unsupportable and would be summarily dismissed as rumormongering.

    Mr. Watts, don’t lose his co-ordinates. Years down the road there’ll be an entire book chapter surrounding the EPA’s shenanigans and it’s role in the current catastrophic AGW industry. I look forward to reading it.

  115. Francis says:

    Folks,

    We really need to pay attention here. We will find no greater expert concerning climate change than Dr. McGartland. He is after all a PhD; it doesn’t matter that it’s in economics. It’s a PhD, so it counts.

    Don’t take my word, check out his bio: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/staff.nsf/c4ce41ae8cfb864b85256ede00683325/9dc39271486dc42f85256b8400765d9b!OpenDocument

    REPLY: PhD’s counts huh? Let me introduce you to another PhD., Dr. John A. Davison. I suggest you order a pizza. – Anthony

  116. evanmjones says:

    Well, maybe some of those PhDs in climatology could have used, say, a BA in history (or literature) before they “got rid of” the Medieval Warm Period.

    An interdisciplinary approach is necessary.

    Unfortunately in a lot cases those sheepskins are the provenance of sheep.

  117. Robert Wood says:

    I am sorry. I object to the posts here that imply if one is not a PhD in climate science, one cannot speak seriusly on the subject.

    I am an engineer who has studied physics and mathematics and logic. I understand the principals of reasoning.

    I am completely capable of passing comment on “global warming science”. To suggest otherwise is the approach of a charlatan.

  118. Bobby Lane says:

    The Obama Administration’s World Transparency Tour continues…with transparency having the clarity of a pyroclastic flow.

  119. Robert Wood says:

    Francis, let me be more specific:

    If you really believe that only the sanctified “Those With A PHd in Climate Scienece” can prognosticate on global warming. then Hansen is a zero, along with most others.

    Who is actually liscensed, by your method, to make pronouncements on global warming? Pielke peut-etre??

  120. Joel says:

    Between governmental coverups, omissions, arrests, and ignorance, it seems we have arrived at more of a political tipping point than a climatological tipping point eh?

  121. Tom Fuller says:

    Hi all,

    Anonymous, if you do agree to speak with me, I promise I will keep your identity anonymous. That is without conditions.

    Thanks for performing a public service.

    Tom Fuller
    San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner,
    Examiner.com

    Reply: IP addresses and unpublished email confirmed. I believe anonymous has retired for the evening, but I will forward information ~ ctm.

  122. Robert Wood says:

    Anonymous, I would be very suspicious of Fuller’s avowal. It costs him/her nothing. You need a guartantee that costs hmi/her.

  123. ohioholic says:

    The only way that this can be solved, insofar as I understand, is to sue the EPA and obtain a check against the administrative branch from the judicial branch. You could hope that Congress passes something that would counteract it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  124. April E. Coggins says:

    Robert Wood: I suggest you take up your argument with the alarmists. It is they who have overused the authority falacy to defend their belief. I (and I assume most of posters) are mocking them. Feeding them little bit of their own medicine does wonders to flush out the system.

  125. Eve says:

    The EPA are [snip] and they have been long before the global warming scam. I do not think they should have any role in the government. They are just another lobbiest group. The[snip] that I speak of was the banning of DDT for “political reasons” We know the political reasons. Far more people in Africa would die without it and they are, at the rate of 1 Million a year.

  126. April E. Coggins says:

    deadwood (17:34:48) : You are absolutely correct, although we need every Republican to vote against this insanity just in case there are cross-overs. The dream of America and the future freedom of the world is relying on this bill to be struck down. It is that important.

    Next time you are asked to give to or support a candidate, insist they answer publicly about global warming. If they refuse or skate around the subject, don’t give a dime.

  127. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Robert, I suspect Francis was being ironic. At least that’s how I read it.

    Cheers G

  128. Jimmy Haigh says:

    anonymous (17:51:36)

    Thanks for the contributions – and bravery! I’ve looked at some of Mr Carlin’s publications and he appears to be a pretty impressive individual. I mentioned at the start of this post that a real can of worms had been opened up. The congressional hearings should be telling…

    Can I make another other point about ‘expertise’ in ‘climate science’? There was no really such thing as ‘climate science’ until about 20 years ago and is 20 years really time enough to build up much expertise in anything? Especially since ‘climate science’ was labouring under the impression that it was ‘global warming’ for most of that time.

    Another point. I’m a geologist and geology has been a real science for hundreds of years now. I have always said that the more I find out about anything scientific the more I realise how litte we really do know. Not so with ‘climate science’ apparently…; it’s all settled already.

  129. Gerry says:

    Once again,
    THE SCIENCE IS IN!
    WE HAVE A CONSENSUS!
    and
    DON’T BOTHER US WITH THE FACTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT WE ONLY TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH US!

  130. F. Ross says:

    anonymous (17:51:36) :

    Good on you!

  131. neill says:

    WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :

    “If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations.
    I do not intend to leave my city, however.”

    sorry, dude. this is global.

    you can run, but you cain’t hide.

    guess you can’t take a Texan outa Texas after all.
    [snip, meant to be cute, but was actually racist ~ ctm]

  132. Darell C. Phillips says:

    WorldNetDaily has picked up on this event-

    HERE’S YOUR TRANSPARENCY
    WorldNetDaily Exclusive
    EPA’s own research expert
    ‘shut up’ on climate change
    Government analyst silenced
    after he critiques CO2 findings

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031

  133. Pat says:

    “Francis (20:03:37) :

    Folks,

    We really need to pay attention here. We will find no greater expert concerning climate change than Dr. McGartland. He is after all a PhD; it doesn’t matter that it’s in economics. It’s a PhD, so it counts.

    Don’t take my word, check out his bio: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/staff.nsf/c4ce41ae8cfb864b85256ede00683325/9dc39271486dc42f85256b8400765d9b!OpenDocument

    What do you say to someone with a PhD in “climatology”? Big Mac, large fries please.

  134. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    neill (22:23:47) :

    WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :

    “If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations.
    I do not intend to leave my city, however.”

    sorry, dude. this is global.

    you can run, but you cain’t hide.

    Unless you live in Russia, where they will increase CO2 emissions by burning cheap fossil fuels while collecting $Billons of Kyoto Carbon credits from foolish western nations. A No-Lose situation. REF: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awZsTffLILz0&refer=home

    Also, China and India are definently putting economic growth ahead of cutting CO2, however both countries are happy for CO2 Credits as a Western Subsidy to pay for Hydro power schemes. REF-1: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2119 and REF-2: http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/jul/env-cdm.htm

    Also Brazil is looking at ways to burn methane (emitting CO2) while collecting carbon credits from Western nations to do so. REF: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38070

    So there are plenty of places to go…

  135. Francis says:

    People,

    Some of you missed my sarcasm. Having a PhD in economics does NOT adequately allow one to opine on climatology, in my humble opinion of course. Too many “doctors” through their letters around with clarification as to their actual field of study or credentials. “Experts” who fail to specify their academic expertise are, I have found, best left ignored.

  136. Sunny says:

    Reality mirrors fiction: It’s like Atlas Shrugged, but without Atlantis to escape to.

  137. anna v says:

    This is a sad thread. Sad for the open society and the promise of the american dream.

    During the time of cold war, a friend of mine, a psychiatric social worker, accompanied her husband to a conference in Moscow. She told me that her impression was, from body laguage and expressions, that the city was full of paranoids. Except she realized that what was scaring those people was not imaginary, but a real threat of loosing a job or status.

    When people reach the point that we are wary of revealing our thoughts in scientific matters because of political repercussions on our job security nobody should be proud .

  138. UK Sceptic says:

    A government agency not telling the truth? Well I never…

    Government agencies exist to nurture and progress government agendas. There’s no other reason for their existence. Over here we call them Quangos – Quasi non-governmental organisations. Some people believe quangos are autonomous but they receive their funding from a central government that also has a say in who runs the outfit and how it operates so how can they be autonomous? The non-governmental part of the name is a cynical lie. No way is our control freak Prime Minister, nor his equally freakish predecessor, going to allow anything resembling independent thought to escape into the proletarian wilds. Think tanks running contrary to the party line (i.e. NOT paid for by government) are staffed by racists, extreme right-wingers, nutjobs and other sinister types etc.

    This is standard operating procedure for any government on the make, particularly when they’ve discovered a new way to fleece and/or control the electorate. It’s nothing short of a gift to socialists who know how to manipulate a system like this. The UK New Labour government love quangos; they’ve allowed them to multiply like bacteria since 1997 . And then New Labour got creative with bogus, state sponsored charities lobbying for “change” that the government just happens to want. Amazing!

    This eco-fascism is getting out of hand. I read somewhere that eventually we’ll be split into two basic groups: Greenies and the people who shoot Greenies.

    Lock and load!

    [REPLY - No inciting to violence, please, even in jest, by implication. Ad Argumentum is all the buckshot we need. ~ Evan]

  139. TerryS says:

    Robert Wood (20:41:13) :

    Anonymous, I would be very suspicious of Fuller’s avowal. It costs him/her nothing. You need a guartantee that costs hmi/her.

    If Tom Fuller breaks his word about this then it will cost him pretty much every future anonymous source. Nobody would trust him with “off the record” comments, give him sneak previews of reports etc. So yes, breaking his word would cost him dearly.

  140. Gordon says:

    “While he is certainly qualified to comment on things like costs vs benefits of regulating CO2, he has absolutely no qualifications to be commenting on the underlying science (which is what he appears to have done).”
    This sort of comment really gets up my nose. Since when has Science been akin to a gnostic religion where secret knowledge is held by a coterie of high priests?
    Science consists, among other things, of a body of knowledge that is accessible to all. One does not need to be an expert in the field of celestial mechanics to realise that solar eclipses can be calculated hundreds of years in advance with high precision. We know this because such predictions have been made in the past and confirmed by later events. This could be called a successsful track record.
    Climate science has no such track record and the predictions of its high priests will be subject to possible falsification in fifty or one hundred years time. Until then a modicum of humility should be in order. Perhaps ensuring that data collection meets a reasonable standard would be an attainable goal?

  141. ChuckNJ says:

    I forwarded the link of this story to drudgereport. maybe they can get some traction with it.

  142. Ben says:

    I also take issue with the claim that one needs a PHD in cliimate science or GCM modelling experience to make a statement on climate change. It doesn’t take a tailor to see that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, it simply takes one person who can see the facts.

    The facts are that there are no facts. There is simply no evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of warming, and the pattern of warming (with a significant dip in the 40s and 70s) shows that natural inter-decadal variability is as large or greater than CO2′s influence. Once you refer to the inter-century variability (with Vikings buried in Greenland permafrost and medieval mines being found under retreating glaciers), you cannot even say that the current warming is unprecedented. Scientists need to grow up and become engineers. The most important lesson is to learn what you don’t know, and you tend to learn what you don’t know a lot better when it those unknowns can kill people.

  143. David L. Hagen says:

    Francis
    “Having a PhD in economics does NOT adequately allow one to opine on climatology, in my humble opinion of course.”

    Even a MINOR in economics at MIT requires:
    “14.30 Introduction to Statistical Method in Economics or
    18.05 Introduction to Probability and Statistics”
    For a PhD,

    . . .candidates ordinarily need two full academic years of study to prepare adequately for the General Examinations and to meet the other pre-thesis requirements. The doctoral thesis must be written in residence, which typically requires three years of research.

    Carlin also has a BSc in Physics from CalTech

    I would expect that combination of physics, mathematics, probability theory, and analysis of complex correlations would prepare Dr. Alan Carlin well to grasp the challenges of climate theory and problems with Global Warming Models. Add to that serious reviewing of the scientific literature published AFTER the IPCC’s report.
    I would seriously examine his evaluations of climate issues – which are probably more credible than that of most of the programmers creating those programs and making grandiose pronouncements on the probability of anthropogenic warming!

    Or would you like to demonstrate your expertise by taking the MIT General Examination in Economics tomorrow?

  144. Rob W says:

    Joe Barton, Texas congressman (who I don’t always agree with) has picked up this story, according to Bloomberg News.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=av_k2IrzSU5g

  145. tnetfront says:

    We should rethink about this article

  146. Nasif Nahle says:

    WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :

    If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations. I do not intend to leave my city, however.

    Mexico won’t help you too much… Here our president is proud for being the first developing country on implementing “regulatory actions against climate change”, which means… Taxes and more taxes on breathing… They said it yesterday.

  147. Richard M says:

    Once again I see that Flanagan, Joel, etc. are strangely quiet. When are these guys going to figure out that if you have the FACTs on your side there is no need to suppress anything. Only liars feel the need to hide the truth. Wake up guys.

    As for needing a PHD … How hard is it to view temperature (air and ocean) and CO2 graphs for the last few years and see one going up and the others going down. That should make even the smartest PHD take notice and create doubts in any hypothesis that links the two as cause and effect. That is the application of simple logic which applies to all fields of science.

  148. sonicfrog says:

    Mr. Fuller:

    Thank you very very much for your correspondence. I am glad you are willing to dip a toe over here to further investigate this story. A large majority of journalists would have dropped the matter as soon as the EPA responded, and we have seen many reporters simply dismiss anything that has developed as a result of the work of Anthony’s or Steve McIntyre’s work. I too am suspicious that CEI didn’t respond in a timely fashion. It wouldn’t be the first time an advocacy group on either side of the AGW issue has exaggerated to try and create a mountain out of a mole hill. Regardless, this story is young. Let’s see how the worm turns.

    Again, thanks for stopping by and keeping an open mind on these matters.

    Mike Alexander aka Sonicfrog.

  149. evanmjones says:

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

  150. Hank says:

    I’m not sure what I think of this. Rulemaking has to be a very messy business. I don’t want to complain with one breath that an agency can’t fire a maverick like Hansen, and then in the next that bosses should give all maverick opinions forbearance. It would be great to see this play out in the press. It would answer many questions I have about what things are like in these rulemaking agencies.

  151. David L. Hagen says:

    American Thinker has picked up the story: Obama’s EPA Makes a Mockery of Due Process

  152. Jimmy Haigh says:

    evanmjones (08:55:51) :

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

    I’m primarily a scientist and I like this quote too. It has a certain something which I’m still trying to work out!

  153. page48 says:

    I’ve dealt with EPA for over 25 years. This is nothing new. This is how it has always been. This is just the first time that their regulatory behavior is and/or is going to effect the majority of the American people so, finally, their behavior is getting broader notice. Whether or not the exposure will make any difference or not remains to be seen.

  154. D. King says:

    evanmjones (08:55:51) :

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

    Hear, hear!

    Jimmy Haigh (09:03:23) :

    I’m primarily a scientist and I like this quote too. It has a certain something which I’m still trying to work out!

    A “je ne se qua?”

  155. Myron Mesecke says:

    3×2 (15:56:23) :

    “What exactly do the people involving themselves in this scam, without actually profiting, think is going to happen when the general population wake up both to the scale of the robbery and the real statistics relating to hypothermia deaths in the North?”

    Hope that the government does what Iran has done in the past week. Crush any and all dissent.

  156. Tom B says:

    Jeff in Ctown (13:29:31) :

    The “Taxation with Representation” license plate you saw was a DC tag. It is intended to protest that DC residents don’t have a voting member of congress. They do elect representatives to the House (not Senate), but they are non-voting members. Residents of a Federal District are just that, not residents of a State.

  157. D. Patterson says:

    Anonymous,
    Do you have any reason to know or suspect there are other authors, reports, documents, or other communications and evidence which were also excluded from the EPA proceedings?

  158. tallbloke says:

    D. King (09:39:47) :

    evanmjones (08:55:51) :

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

    Hear, hear!

    Jimmy Haigh (09:03:23) :

    I’m primarily a scientist and I like this quote too. It has a certain something which I’m still trying to work out!

    A “je ne se qua?”

  159. tallbloke says:

    Engineers: realising the dreams of scientists and society since the invention of the wheel.

  160. sonicfrog says:

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

    I’m primarily a scientist and I like this quote too. It has a certain something which I’m still trying to work out!

    I’m sure there’s a climate science computer model that will be able to decipher the meaning. Of course, it will also confirm global warming.

  161. anonymous says:

    RE: Patterson (10:32:39) :

    The internal process and the external are not the same. The internal process is kept within the agency and it is not appropriate for an EPA employee to discuss what went on within that process. What happend to Alan Carlin clearly was outside that process. I will leave to others to investigate the internal process, including what else was not considered by the Endangerment work group.

    As for the external process, known as the public comment process, I don’t think anything will be “excluded.” The question will be whether it will be ignored or given little attention. That remains to be seen. What is clear is that Alan Carlin will not be allowed to help in that process.

  162. theduke says:

    Jimmy Haigh (09:03:23) :

    evanmjones (08:55:51) :

    Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.

    Now there’s a candidate for quote of the week.

    I’m primarily a scientist and I like this quote too. It has a certain something which I’m still trying to work out!
    ———————————————-

    Engineering is where the rubber meets the road.

  163. theduke says:

    Or, to put it another way, the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is a bridge built without the bother of engineering.

  164. Darell C. Phillips says:

    I wish to thank “anonymous” for alerting the public of the truthfulness of this story, based on WUWT fact-checking the validity of your identity.

    Joe Barton, ranking member of the House minority Committee on Energy and Commerce, has a Press Release dated yesterday at:

    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7148

    Barton Confronts EPA Politicals Over Suppression of Economist’s Critical Report on CO2 Endangerment
    Barton, others to discuss issue at 12:30 p.m. news conference on Thursday in House Radio-TV Gallery, H-321

    This should already have happened. It will be interesting to hear the answers to those questions.

  165. Tom Fuller says:

    I will be publishing a new story soon that continues this saga–I may have to apologise to Competitive Enterprise Institute, based on conversations with a source inside the EPA that has confirmed the essential elements of Alan Carlin’s story, released through the CEI yesterday. I hope to have it up today.

    As WUWT was instrumental in helping me advance this story, I’ll provide Charles with a copy simultaneous with its release.

  166. Tim Clark says:

    Jeff in Ctown (13:29:31) :
    If I was an American I would be realy mad at this one.
    Jeff Id (13:30:01) :
    I’m so pissed now.

    To quote someone with more intelligence than the overwhelming majority in Congress:

    That’s all I’m going to say bout that.

  167. Russ R. says:

    This whole process is a crock! How can you PROVE that CO2 creates an endangerment to society, such as air-borne particulates or SO2. We know what is bad to breathe and what is not, and this whole process is a scam. Am I or anyone I know personally being endangered by 1 extra molecule of CO2 per 10,000?
    It borders on absurdity, and really requires strong blinders to keep out any real evidence from the folks in fly-over land.

    EPA – Excrement Processing Agency.

  168. Tim Clark says:

    Tim Clark (13:05:18)

    Even better, by the same individual:

    Washington is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get……and…..It happens.

  169. Darell C. Phillips says:

    I just found two press releases that are dated today:

    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7150

    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=7151

    The second of these offers the following comment:

    “It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote. “The attached EPA emails raise serious questions about the process for developing the proposed endangerment finding, whether analysis or information was suppressed because it did not support the administration and/or administrator’s proposed finding, and/or whether there is a fear within the agency that there will be negative consequences for offices that offer views critical of the prevailing views of the administrator and the administration.”

    Here is a link to the actual letter to Chairman Waxman:

    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/062509_Letter_to_Waxman_Stupak_on_Endangerment.PDF

  170. Darell C. Phillips says:

    Tom Fuller (13:03:22) :

    Your diligence and high standards are to be commended, sir.

  171. evanmjones says:

    Mr. Fuller:

    Good man. Be sure and link us to it!

    ———————————————

    “Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.”

    Don’t forget, it’s Ben who said it.

  172. evanmjones says:

    Also bear in mind that Francis was not criticizing Carlin, but his detractor.

    Nonetheless, I think all sorts of folks with all sorts of degrees (or without them) can contribute to all sides of the debate. This is a fairly open field: vast, complex, largely unexplored . . . there’s room for everyone.

  173. I find it ironic that one of the ads that Google put on this was “HELP STOP GLOBAL WARMING. Discover How You Can Take Action & Demand Change From Your Leaders.” That’s the problem, isn’t it? Concerned nonscientists have taken the message of Global Warming, er, excuse me, now it’s Climate Change (because there is a question as to whether it’s warming or cooling) and created a crisis in the minds of the public. So much for truth in advertising . . .

  174. Eve says:

    I had no idea murderer was a bad word. I noticed it was snipped from my previous comment.
    Should I call them killers instead. I presume I can call them cheats and liars, just not murderers? The EPA knows exactly what they are doing. When DDT was banned they said it was not banned for scientific reasons, it was banned for political reasons. The EPA also refused to allow any of the safeguards proposed by the Army Engineers to protect New Orleans. The proposed folding floodgate which would have protected the city against the storm surge was not allowed, by the EPA, because it would interfer with fish sex. In the case of C02 being a pollutant, I know they know better and I am sure they know the numbers of Americans who will die from cold when energy prices skyrocket. However, keeping humans alive is not their agenda.

  175. Tom Fuller says:

    Once again, it’s WUWT that deserves the credit–many thanks to you all:

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d25-The-EPAs-internal-nightmare-over-global-warming-Part-1

    The EPA’s internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1

    A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

    The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA’s view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin’s report and said that it was ‘based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications’ that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

    The EPA’s draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments–except for Carlin’s.

    Alan Carlin, who had hosted a series of seminars featuring peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports (but were unattended by members of the workgroup developing the Endangerment Finding) went public via the Competitive Enterprise Institute after realising that there would be no debate about the science. The lectures by the scientists are available on the EPA website, but were not even mentioned in the Finding. Carlin was advised to get an attorney–and has since been reassigned to mundane work, some of which is normally performed by outside contractors.

    All this comes despite the peculiar bind the EPA finds itself in. Regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is not something they really want to do–unless new legislation makes it possible for them to ignore smaller emitters. As it stands, the EPA would find it necessary to regulate entities as small as churches and schools, if they have buses that emit more than 250 tons of CO2 per year. But there is no certainty that new legislation will arrive at all, much less contain the restrictions the EPA needs.

    Meanwhile, the many comments received by the EPA will now be evaluated. Our source indicates that it is most likely that the initial compilation and review will be conducted by outside contractors, who may also provide draft responses, which is really supposed to be done only by EPA staff. Our source notes that the EPA may not have the expertise to evaluate many of the comments, as they are more charged with dealing with the effects of global warming through regulation rather than determining the true nature of the cause. Our source says members of the workgroup complained to other EPA staff that they don’t understand these issues, much less how to relate the scientific studies identified in Carlin’s report to the IPCC report.

    (Some day I’ll put in the comments some of the back story behind all of this…)

  176. kurt says:

    The moderators may want to edit that last post by Tom Fuller to omit the parentheticals in the last paragraph that should have been deleted. It’s a guess, but the deletions may be intended to protect the identity of the source.

    Reply: Done. ~ ctm

  177. Sonicfrog says:

    Mr. Fuller

    Again, thank you for your due diligence.

    Meanwhile the lawmakers on Capital Hill are still trying to railroad the cap and trade through.

  178. kurt says:

    This “anonymous” source sounds pretty credible, if for no other reason than that he provides an explanation for some of the ambiguities in the e-mails released by CEI. For example, in the first e-mail to Carlin, the supervisor refers to a “tighty schedule” and a “turn of events,” which is now explained by the paltry one-week notice and the Earth Day deadline. It’s also consistent with EPAs response that Carlin put on some seminars about his work and opinions, its just that this new information clarifies that these seminars were prior to, and had nothing to do with the endangerment finding. (Based on my recollection, everything in EPAs initial response to Fuller is technically true, but doesn’t tell the whole story). Finally, note the consistency between the last e-mail to Carlin telling him to do busy-work and noting that the agency had a lot of budgetary cutbacks, with the information above that Carlin is now required to do things normally assigned to contractors.

  179. Indiana Bones says:

    anonymous (17:51:36) :

    I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

    This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.

    What is particularly vexing is that people choosing to bring forth the truth in the manner the head of EPA and the Obama Administration claimed they would – are all terrified to the man. What any government employee should know is that reprisals of any sort for bringing forward factual information pertinent to the public – is protected by law. Specifically by the Office of Special Counsel. It seems like they should be immediately involved in this specific case where an employee is being silenced due to the contrary content of their work.

    http://www.osc.gov/intro.htm

    It should be up to the public and their representatives how do deal with reports like those of Mr. Carlin. WE pay the salary of these people. I for one would like to judge for myself the merits of Mr. Carlin’s argument. Publish this report! Each day it is not published is another failure of the transparency EPA claims to operate by.

  180. IB says:

    anonymous (17:51:36) :

    I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

    This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.

    What is particularly vexing is that people choosing to bring forth the truth in the manner the head of EPA and the Obama Administration claimed they would – are all terrified to the man. What any government employee should know is that reprisals of any sort for bringing forward factual information pertinent to the public – is protected by law. Specifically by the Office of Special Counsel. It seems like they should be immediately involved in this specific case where an employee is being silenced due to the contrary content of their work.

    http://www.osc.gov/intro.htm

    It should be up to the public and their representatives how do deal with reports like those of Mr. Carlin. WE pay the salary of these people. I for one would like to judge for myself the merits of Mr. Carlin’s argument. Publish this report! Each day it is not published is another failure of the transparency EPA claims to operate by.

  181. Francis says:

    “David L. Hagen (06:12:22) : I would expect that combination of physics, mathematics, probability theory, and analysis of complex correlations would prepare Dr. Alan Carlin well to grasp the challenges of climate theory and problems with Global Warming Models.”

    I would expect so as well. However, had you been paying attention you would have noted that I was referring to Dr. Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), who originated the “shut up and color” e-mail. Dr. McGartland holds a PhD from the University of Maryland. I confident that the requirements for a minor at U of M are not as stringent as they are at MIT.

    “Or would you like to demonstrate your expertise by taking the MIT General Examination in Economics tomorrow?”

    Perhaps you would like to demonstrate your humility by apologizing.

    Francis

  182. Nasif Nahle says:

    Jeff in Ctown (13:29:31):

    If I was an American I would be realy mad at this one.

    America goes first, Europe and Asia go second, and the developing world goes third. At the end, every human inhabiting this world will be buying “clean” air or carbon credits to get the right of cooking outdoors an extra BBQ on the grill…

  183. Tom Fuller says:

    Hi all,

    As the Examiner who wrote the story up, I need to apologise for not crediting this blog for doing so much of the original work. I’ve amended my story to start, Update: Because I was on deadline (no excuse) I didn’t credit Anthony Watts and his weblog Watts Up With That for a) alerting me to this issue in the first place, b) providing adequate background to help my understanding enough of the issue to proceed and c) facilitating contact with the source interviewed below. I have mentioned Mr. Watts and his weblog on numerous occasions (I’m not affiliated with them, by the way), but certainly not enough on this occasion. Watts Up With That, winner of the Science Blog of the Year, has once again provided an invaluable service to those interested in issues surrounding global warming.

    REPLY: Thanks Tom, no worries. As a broadcaster, I understand deadlines. You are always welcome here. – Anthony

  184. Joel Shore says:

    Richard M says:

    Once again I see that Flanagan, Joel, etc. are strangely quiet. When are these guys going to figure out that if you have the FACTs on your side there is no need to suppress anything. Only liars feel the need to hide the truth. Wake up guys.

    I would turn this around and ask where you and your friends here were when a political appointee in the White House with no scientific credentials was rewriting scientific reports from the EPA with his own mandatory edits to such a degree that the EPA scientists decided to just delete the entire section on climate change from the report rather than going with the scientifically-indefensible product that these edits produced? And, the editor is a person who had previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute and ended up going to Exxon right after he left the White House. (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney)

    So basically, we have on the one hand, a non-scientist political appointee enforcing mandatory edits on a scientific report during the Bush era. And, now on the other hand, in the Obama era, we apparently have one economist in the EPA who wanted to raise some questions about the climate science well after the EPA scientists had already weighed in on the scientific issues and was told that the time to do so had already past.

    In other words, what we have here is a completely manufactured controversy and the simultaneous overlooking of the very serious repression of scientific information that occurred in regards to climate change during the Bush Administration.

    As for needing a PHD … How hard is it to view temperature (air and ocean) and CO2 graphs for the last few years and see one going up and the others going down. That should make even the smartest PHD take notice and create doubts in any hypothesis that links the two as cause and effect. That is the application of simple logic which applies to all fields of science.

    Well, I honestly would not expect it would take a PhD to understand how to understand a signal that consists of a slow approximately linear trend with quite a bit of variability imposed on top of this trend. After all, I don’t see people here in Rochester, NY running around and saying that the seasonal cycle is a myth whenever we have a week or two in spring when the temperature trend is negative (which does not seem to me to be at all uncommon although I have never actually tried to run the numbers to see just how often it occurs). However, given the fact that this does seem to create so much confusion, I’m not sure what it takes.

  185. kurt says:

    Joel Shore (20:11:07) :

    “So basically, we have on the one hand, a non-scientist political appointee enforcing mandatory edits on a scientific report during the Bush era. And, now on the other hand, in the Obama era, we apparently have one economist in the EPA who wanted to raise some questions about the climate science well after the EPA scientists had already weighed in on the scientific issues and was told that the time to do so had already past.”

    The former is unprofessional and arguably unethical, the latter is unlawful. EPA is required by both regulation and federal court decisions to include, in an administrative record on a proposed rule (not at issue in your Bush-era example), all evidence relevant to its decision, even that weighing against the decision. Carlin’s branch of the EPA was given notice of the proposed rule a week before the deadline to submit comments. Carlin promptly compiled comments to submit based on his prior workand submitted it to his supervisor, who then obstructed its submission to the relevant group, and in the last few days just sat on it until the deadline passed. Your claim that Carlin’s submission was prepared “well after the EPA scientists had already weighed in on the scientific issues and [after] the time to do so had already past” is simply false.

    I’d also point out that I’ve just read Carlin’s report, and your reference to him as a “non-scientist” is disingenuous, particularly given his degree in Physics. He may have a Masters in Economics, and work for an Economics division of EPA, but implying that he lacks the technical background to submit relevant commentary to the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is absurd. Quite frankly, Carlin’s report makes a mockery of the EPA’s technical support document that accompanies the proposed endangerment finding. The former is a detailed analysis of the relevant science and the latter is just a rehash of IPCC conclusory statements about the impacts of CO2.

  186. kurt says:

    Joel Shore (20:11:07) :

    “Well, I honestly would not expect it would take a PhD to understand how to understand a signal that consists of a slow approximately linear trend with quite a bit of variability imposed on top of this trend.”

    How do you know that the variability is “imposed on the top of” the linear trend? This implies something like a weak repeating radio signal with a lot of spurrious EM interference on the signal. One alternate view of that kind of a graph is that the “trend” is just a result of the random variablity. If I toss a coin 10,000 times, there may well be periods in the data set where the number of “heads” results in a sequential 10-toss increments goes from 4 to 5 to 6, etc. by random chance. This does not represent some real “trend”, it’s just the nature of random behavior.

  187. John M says:

    Joel Shore (20:11:07) :

    I would turn this around and ask where you and your friends here were when a political appointee in the White House with no scientific credentials was rewriting scientific reports from the EPA with his own mandatory edits to such a degree that the EPA scientists decided to just delete the entire section on climate change from the report rather than going with the scientifically-indefensible product that these edits produced? And, the editor is a person who had previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute and ended up going to Exxon right after he left the White House.

    So Joel, when can we expect the Obama administration appointee to be forced to resign? That is, after all, what happened in the Bush administration, isn’t it?

    I must say, it’s a sad day for wamers when their only argument seem to be “our political hacks are no worse than your political hacks.”

    (BTW, your wikipedia link is dead. You wouldn’t happen to be recycling an old “talking point”, would you?)

  188. Sean says:

    I would like to know once and for all from the AGW crowd where in the scientific literature does it say “Exxon=Satan”? And why do you all insist on using ad hominem attacks against dissenters instead of attempting to refute the theories themselves?

  189. Smokey says:

    Sean,

    The AGW crowd rarely answers uncomfortable questions like yours, and when they do they’re never very truthful. But you do raise a good point regarding American businesses, and since the AGW contingent won’t comment, may I? Thank you:

    Let’s take the case of Chevron, for one example. Because I know the story [I'm not affiliated with Chevron in any way].

    From 1977, the Ecuadorian government began taking a 62.5% share in all oil produced by Texaco in the Lago Agrio field, and in 1992 Ecuador arbitrarily raised that to a 100% tax. Texaco withdrew from Ecuador. Chevron bought Texaco in 2001.

    Texaco had originally financed the entire operation in Ecuador with that government’s active encouragement, and by invitation. Subsequently, Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated all of Texaco’s assets, with no compensation.

    Naturally, some activist lawyers appeared and tried to file suit on behalf of locals who claimed damage to their health from the oil waste. Three separate times, American courts ruled that they had no jurisdiction over the matter. Now the lawsuit is in Ecuador, promoted by the Ecuadorian government, and it will likely result in a huge award against Chevron/Texaco. Once that judgement is in, U.S. law allows the judgement to be filed in the U.S. for collection. That’s your retirement nest egg at stake.

    Given the unwanted publicity over the waste pits, Texaco had previously agreed to pay $40 million to clean up the pits and resolve the issue. The government signed an agreement with Texaco, specifically releasing Texaco from any further liability once the $40 million was paid.

    Texaco’s cleanup work was completed in 1998. Meanwhile, the government’s oil company, Petroecuador, which was to clean up its own waste pits neglected to do so. Petroecuador continues to use the same pits for its waste disposal. But of course, Petroecuador gets a pass; the government isn’t going to go after itself.

    Ecuador then passed an environmental law, which was specifically stated to be non-retroactive. That didn’t matter. In 2003 Chevron was sued under the law for $6 billion over the cleanup.

    That amount was later arbitrarily raised by Ecuador to $27.3 billion [keep in mind that anyone with a 401-K or equivalent, or a mutual fund, probably owns Chevron stock; Ecuador is after your savings].

    The $27.3 billion included a claim of $8.4 billion for “unjust enrichment” [note that Texaco's total profits from its entire Ecuador production was only $497 million -- while the government of Ecuador took in $25.3 billion from the oil field, over fifty times as much as Texaco. But they had to have it all].

    Another $9.5 billion was added to the suit for 30,000 cancer deaths claimed to be caused by the oil residue. Of course, Petroecuador got a free pass again, and has never been sued, even though they run 100% of the operation and continue to fill the waste pits. [In 2007 a U.S. court ruled that the claims of pollution causing cancers was fabricated, and fined the plaintiff's U.S. lawyers.]

    As in many countries, there is no rule of law in Ecuador. Signed agreements between the government and private business means nothing when the government decides to confiscate foreign assets. The government of Ecuador has learned from countries like Iran and Venezuela that the U.S. government will do absolutely nothing to protect U.S. interests — which are your interests. Every dollar that U.S. companies and citizens are cheated out of is a dollar in the pockets of a corrupt government.

    Sad to say, but the current Administration appears to represent the interests of other countries over the welfare of its own citizens.

    That’s my rant. And I double dog dare any AGW weenie to dispute it. I have plenty more facts, this was just an example.

  190. ROM says:

    “Scientists need to grow up and become engineers.”

    Engineers make things.
    Scientists think they make things.

  191. Joel Shore says:

    John M says:

    (BTW, your wikipedia link is dead. You wouldn’t happen to be recycling an old “talking point”, would you?)

    The problem is that the closed parentheses was interpreted as part of the URL…Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney

    I would like to know once and for all from the AGW crowd where in the scientific literature does it say “Exxon=Satan”?

    I don’t control reality. The reality of the situation is that Cooney was at API before entering the Bush Administration and went to ExxonMobil immediately after. If he had gone to Chevron or Texaco instead, then I likely would have pointed that out too. But he didn’t.

  192. Joel Shore says:

    Engineers make things.
    Scientists think they make things.

    Scientists produce the understanding and knowledge that allows the engineers to make the things. I’m not dissing engineers, as I very much respect a good engineer’s ability to turn scientific knowledge into something useful. The world needs both.

  193. Kate says:

    This is a foundation piece of law upon which will be built new so-called “green” businesses and taxation worth trillion$.

    It’s got nothing to do with science, which is why all the science is ignored. This is the new gold rush, and anyone getting in the way will be ignored, brushed aside, or just plain trampled in the stampede by the armies of vested interests.

    Why the rush? This law has to be a done deal in time for Copenhagen, which will get the rest of the G8 into an armlock to force through similar laws in all the other G8 countries; The Americans will declare “We’ve done it, so now you’ve got to do it too”.

  194. Paul says:

    The NCEE home page describes its mission, including assiting “EPA by informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences. …” The NCEE was formally established in 1980 (according to its history page). anyone know how I can find the legal reference that established the NCEE. That document should describe the responsibliites of the NCEE, which was probably paraphrased into the statement on the NCEE’s home page. Depending on what the legal responsiblities of the NCEE are, there may be a case of misfeasance on the part of the NCEE office director.

  195. kurt says:

    Joel Shore (18:31:22) :

    “Scientists produce the understanding and knowledge that allows the engineers to make the things. I’m not dissing engineers, as I very much respect a good engineer’s ability to turn scientific knowledge into something useful.”

    Until the engineers did something useful, the scientists’s “knowledge” was really just “speculation.” I’m not dissing scientists, I just think that they sometimes use the soundness of the methodology behind a conclusion as a proxy for the ultimate truth of the conclusion.

    Some scientists tend to be a little cavalier when asserting that they “know” a fact, when really they merely presume it based on essentially reasoned speculation. I think this is because scientists don’t have to suffer real consequences for being wrong. In fact, a good scientist shouldn’t really care in that if an hypothisis or premise is ultimately proven wrong, they still have learned something incremental. But at the same time you have to wonder when you read facially absurd statements by some of them, (e.g. “we now know” that the higher-than-present temperatures of the Holcene optimum were limited to equatorial regions – the authors of that statement “knew” nothing of the kind, they just inferred it from a single new study of twenty so data points covering the entire globe).

Comments are closed.