CARBONGATE – Global Warming Study Censored by EPA

EPA_censorshipRelated story:

Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management

by Richard Morrison, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

Read the censored report here:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf


Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 1Y0-A17 questions and 642-456 lab tutorials to practice and pass 1Y0-A08 certification exam on first try.


About these ads

224 thoughts on “CARBONGATE – Global Warming Study Censored by EPA

  1. Great stuff.
    This will shake them up.It would be great to have this report in Congress asap as CO2 regulation by EPA is used as a sword of damocles in case the Waxman Bill does not make it.
    It really would be a great help.

  2. The WUWT condributor, Robert, suggested the name “CARBONGATE” on the previous thread (Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management) and I thought it was brilliant.

    This thing is snowballing!

  3. 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

  4. Ignore the science, ignore the constitution, ignore that some numbers show C & T crippling the country by cutting GDP in almost half. None of that matters, it is all about the graft money and getting well positioned in the new regime or market, and jamming it through while the dems are in power and before the global cooling becomes too obvious.

    Energy=prosperity
    Tax=to impede
    Tax energy=impede prosperity

  5. Brilliant Work. Hopefully this will be picked up on MSM in Aus.

    re: Jimmy Haigh (19:33:59)

    Love the thought:

    Global Warming being Snowballed by Carbongate.

    Love the irony.

  6. I had the pleasure of approving anonymous’ initial post. But it was jeez and the R . . . er, Anthony that carried all the water.

    Sitting on the sidelines, I have had a fine old time watching this unfold . . .

    P.S. Good Old Tom! Thanks!

  7. What is going on here is that a shoddy United Nations work product is now infecting the federal government of the United States.

    As Shakespeare’s stage directions once said, “Alarum to the Battle.” (Henry the IV, Part 1.)

  8. Hey, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, you’re in the table of contents on p. vii! Basil, too. Can’t wait to read that section! (p. 56).

    REPLY: I hate it when that happens! – A

  9. I place the source of the use of outdated information by the EPA squarely on Al Gore who told us all that “the science was settled.”

    Amazingly, these “comments” read like the author spent a lot of time visiting this web site.

    Frankly, I think his comments about EPA being painted as the bad guy should AGW be discredited are spot on. EPA has set itself up as a future “village idiot,” which will help the politicians to no end should they need to unwind the politics of AGW if facts on the ground create AGW “quicksand.”.

  10. WOW. It will be fun to watch the expert spin doctors in the Administration address this. I’m sure they will find a way to sweep it under the rug. They will follow the Clinton Doctrine: I mean, like, what does the word “truth” mean, anyway. It’s all relative, if you are a liberal.

  11. I place the source of the use of outdated information by the EPA squarely on Al Gore who told us all that “the science was settled.”

    Amazingly, these “comments” read like the author spent a lot of time visiting this web site.

    Frankly, I think his comments about EPA being painted as the bad guy should AGW be discredited are spot on. EPA has set itself up as a future “village idiot,” which will help the politicians to no end should they need to unwind the politics of AGW if facts on the ground create AGW “quicksand.”

  12. Hell, I just invented the term “Carbongate” in a previous thread only minutes ago. …Darn, those electro-telecommunication thingies just run too fast…:-)

    REPLY: And a fine term it is. – Anthony

  13. The EPA has been involved in fraudulent regulation for years – Polar Bears, owls, the list goes on. It is a political organization, not scientific, so there should be no surprise here.

  14. This is stunning! Well done Anthony, Tom and anyone else involved. It’s good to see corrupt administrations and coverups being exposed this way. All we get here in Australia is more and more politically motivated lies (And more and more BS ads on TV).

    But how long before the CEI becomes “tainted”?

  15. What!?!

    Sloth and dishonesty uncovered within the Klimate Kommissariat?

    Oh the horrors! Quick! Somebody notify the Carbon Kommissar!

    Oh, wait. We don’t have one of those…yet.

    And that’s a good thing.

  16. And when will the mainstream media (ABCNNBCBS or even Drudge) start reporting on this? Let me guess – after supoenas are served.

  17. Hey, Anthony, you’re cited on p. 5 re. the 2005 solar magnetic drop. Quite an extensive footnote.

  18. Do you know of any attorneys who would be willing to file an injunction against the EPA?

  19. Thanks for getting the link to the draft report posted. It is interesting that the author was advocating caution with regard to the use of IPCC material as the EPA could be blamed for decisions based on science they did not independantly check. It seems that the author was actually trying to act in the best interests of his employer and the American taxpayer. I have also noted some discussion over at CA as to if IPCC material should be included in EPA decisions if it has not been formaly submited, and also if AR4 meets the requirments for submissions due to the nature of the IPCC.

  20. Leon Brozyna (20:22:16) :

    And when will the mainstream media (ABCNNBCBS or even Drudge) start reporting on this? Let me guess – after supoenas are served.

    Indeed Leon. When?

  21. The EPA is correct: When it all goes bad or just plain doesn’t happen they will be thrown under the bus.
    Just now getting into the report, lots to read, but I can see they have a good handle on all the things that are known & unknown.
    I’ll make sure my Congressman knows the draft has been released.

  22. Reading the report:

    The “Executive Summary” dismisses the lowly EPA author to servitude, if not unemployment.

  23. woodNfish (20:12:55) :

    From my experience, it’s the rank & file that get the major portion of the blame. Lessers in management too.
    Who knew what when and why weren’t we told staged outrage hearings are a poor substitue for a stitch in time. Might make the audience feel better, but it won’t undo the damage to the free world as economy & power is ceded to tyrants.

  24. This as far as I can tell, has been circulating about 2 days. It is showing up on some other sites. Wonder if some people will get fired at the EPA for being associated with info that doesn’t fit the mission?
    It seems posts are up a lot on this site.
    Is James Hansen out of jail or will they let him read the paper there? Did he really think he would share a cell with daryl Hannah and do peer review with her?

  25. The EPA ignored their scientists over water fluoridation safety issues also. The scientists went on strike against their agency over that and the unjust firing of the top critic. Weather is not the only science that is being manipulated by BOTH sides of the aisle. Nonetheless, this may be a planned change in tactics…

  26. I’ve sent this and the Examiner Link to everyone I could think of who might get it past the Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett fluff before the Thermageddon vote. And had my small band of miscreants do the same.
    Great Job getting this out.

  27. And a nice long section dealing with Joe D’Aleo’s PDO/AMO correlation, also on this site.

  28. Is this thing really from inside the EPA? I mean, it’s too good to be true. The guy writes with a bluntness unlike any bureaucrat I ever came across. C’mon, fellas. Somebody’s got to be pulling our legs on this one.

  29. While I understand the report is a draft, I do have some concerns. There seems to be a lot of cut and paste going on, and maybe too many of the references were to websites, blogs or newspaper articles. I feel Alan’s supervisor may have had a valid point in this area, though it appears this may have only been for the purposes of delaying submission. Interestingly WUWT does get quite a few mentions. However as the purpose of the report appears to have been to encourage the EPA to independantly verify the science, a more complete set of references should not really be nessesary. I hope to read the final version soon.

  30. Fluoridation, just like black helicopters, has become a punch-line for many jokes in today’s society.

    DEA did have black helicopters – oops!

    Compare America before and after the introduction of Flouridation. Is there a difference?

    Sometimes, us “old farts” remember when science was the aquisition of raw data, and the quest to understand what that data was teaching us.

    Today, our leading scientists no longer understand the difference between computer generated models, and actual reality.

  31. Anthony,
    Congratulations on your efforts to expose the AGW fraud.
    Interesting, based on my learnings from this site, the theme I used in my comments to the EPA are the same as those in the report:
    “The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.”
    Thanks for your fruitful efforts. Keep up the good work.

  32. What’s kind of horrifying is that even our more casual readers are at the least highly familiar with ALL of the points in this paper. We either agree, disagree, or are unsure. Our knowledge varies on each point. But, DANG, we at least we KNOW about them!

    The fact that the EPA seems baffled about such things, caught flatfooted, speaks to a sort of monumental, colossal, nay, magnificent ignorance and incompetence.

    I expect this sort of thing from Congressmen. They at least have the excuse that they have other things to do. They rely on expert opinion to reach reasonable decisions regarding such matters. But, holy canole, the EPA — supposedly — ARE the experts! And they reveal themselves to be . . . boobs! Flatheads! Not unlike an English professor who has never heard of Shakespeare.

  33. I used to work for the EPA about 10 years ago (before sensibly changing careers). I worked for a state agency, not the feds – but I can tell you, there is practically no science behind the rules – at least in air. Some of the stuff we were forced to regulate – storage tanks, unpaved parking lots (yep – miniscule amounts of dust from companies, but no regulation of farm fields -and the permits for it are about 20 pages long!!), etc… bordered on insanity. Pollutant emission limits were applied to sources that couldn’t be measured, and regulations were applied to VOC’s from surface coatings that had absolutely no basis in reality. I saw one two many companies hampered by an out of date California Rule 66 adaptation that I literally could not perform my duties anymore (thus the career change). One company in particular (a large company) was almost forced to shutdown because they were unable to compete – the rules prevented them from installing additional production lines!!!!

    Oh sure, there are some bad actors out there – who do actually cause pollution problems (asphalt plants are notorious), but the vast majority are good companies that get caught up in an absurdly expensive regulatory mess that does nothing to prevent pollution. Cap n’ Trade is not the first piece of nonsense – Title V is. This largely unknown rule forced companies to pay for their emissions (measured or otherwise). These costs have been passed on to you since the late 90’s.

    There were a couple of decent rules too, but they were small in comparison.

    I only had to deal with US EPA a couple of times, but I recall the Steel Industry ‘Expert’ at US EPA Region 5 at the time, had been to one steel plant in his career. That should tell you something.

  34. Leon Brozyna (20:22:16) :

    I wouldn’t think that about Drudge. He will investigate it and report it if it has real teeth. You can send the link of this thread, with a headline, to his News Tips box. If enough people make him aware we will see it on his front page!!

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

  35. I’m reading on the cb (cumulo-nimus).
    Interesting. I’ll pay much more attention to thunderheads from now on.

  36. This is a no lose deal for the EPA. If the initiative fails, who’s going to get more budget items for further study? If the initiative advances, who’s going to be administering whatever it is that gets set up to regulate emissions? I see it as kind of a battle between experts who would always like more time to study things and the elected who want credit for doing something about greenhouse gases. The best thing that could happen would be a big June frost somewhere that would just shut everyone up about this global warming nonsense.

  37. Compare America before and after the introduction of Flouridation. Is there a difference?

    Better teeth.

  38. This, too, shall pass away, unnoticed because it will remain unreported. On the other hand –

    “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, . . .”
    – Internal EPA email, March 17th, 2009

    Mr McGartland must have gotten the word from somewhere that Obama’s administration had already decided the outcome three months before the close of the comment period. An electronic record of emails and other communications to Mr McGartland from his higher-ups must exist, and that record would prove what, a conspiracy?, a subversion of legal requirements in rules promulgation?

    Those emails we have seen may be only the tip (freeboard?) of the iceberg in this story. FOIA anyone?

  39. “Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute (20:43:25) :”

    Excellent video Sam! Excellent!

  40. evanmjones (21:33:19)

    Having just spent $3,000 this month to get my teeth fixed, I am not that convinced that Americans have better teeth than before the introduction of Flouridation. If so, then Dentists would be obsolete today.

    LOL – sometimes the old jokes may have some truth behind them.

  41. Hank (21:31:42) :

    This is a no lose deal for the EPA. If the initiative fails, who’s going to get more budget items for further study?

    ————————————

    I disagree. This could be a public relations disaster for the EPA. If they are seen to be forcing dubious science from the UN down the throats of the American public, they will become a target for ridicule. There is nothing that frightens bureacrats more than that. It means that not only their funding is in jeopardy, but their mandate as well.

  42. The report (Proposed NCEE Comments) is very well-written considering the haste the author(s) was (were) operating under. However, I was disappointed in the brevity of the section that dealt with “endangerment.”

    That section (pages 64 through 66) lists increasing crop yields over the last 30 years, declining heat-related mortality, improving air quality, and increasing life expectancy as indicators of the lack of adverse impacts of alleged human-induced “climate changes.”

    That list is far too short and understated. The BENEFITS of global warming over the last 30 years also include: longer growing seasons, more rain, increased agricultural productivity, increased biological productivity of all kinds, increased biodiversity, expanding populations of so-called endangered species (such as polar bears), reduced poverty, famine, and disease, and a host of other positives associated with a warmer planet.

    The EPA action to regulate CO2 is based on two assumptions, first that CO2 causes global warming and second that warming has negative impacts to Humanity and Nature. The latter is the so-called “endangerment.” Neither assumption is proved; in fact both are demonstrably false. WUWT has concentrated on the former, but the latter is equally important to refuting and contravening the EPA’s proposed regulatory action.

  43. Perhaps we need to invent the “Scientific Quality Tooth Index Factor (SQTIF)” as an indication of what to expect from a report on the subject of climate.

    The more fillings in your mouth, the higher your SQTIF score will be.

    Now compare this with the official EPA criteria for scientific research…

    Which is the better indicator of quality data gathering and analysis?

  44. I think many underestimate the significance of this blog. Even those of us who post here.

  45. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

    If we don’t accept science by consensus for AGW, we should not accept it for anything else. Rather we should go by the preponderance of the evidence. The wording is unfortunate.

  46. WOW. Someone in the class was PAYING ATTENTION. That is one fine report, even if not as polished as the author wanted it to be. All that in just a few days? You’re HIRED. Class dismissed!

    Question… What were the other 16,999 people at EPA doing while this guy was doing all the work? Sounds like we could chop it 90% and not miss a thing.

    I never saw the chart reconstructing sunspots from temperature alone before, nice work Anthony! Hmm, which is better, that one, or CO2 vs Temp? Oh, wait, I’ll ask the consensus…

    I wrote my supreme leaders again tonight, now moving on to the media.

  47. CarbonGate? Seriously?

    Come on, guys. Tacking “gate” to the end of anything potentially scandalous is so 35 years ago. It’s crying wolf & overused. We’re practically begging for the average citizen to ignore it completely, and that’s exactly who we’re trying to reach here. Otherwise, this is just preaching to the choir.

    While I appreciate the efforts of all involved here — and believe me, I do — and while I sincerely hope this has legs to at least postpone this nonsense until Copenhagen, it doesn’t have much potential beyond that. It may buy us a few more months, which I’m all for, but we need to accept reality for what it is and focus on combating that reality.

    Who controls the four branches of government right now, media being the fourth? That’s right. We have little voice outside of the internet. Sure, we can act through our elected representatives on Waxman-Markey (just did so myself, thank you for the link) and flood the phone lines & e-mail inboxes to push this back, but that’s about it. It’s going to keep rearing its ugly head over & over again until we lose.

    We have to take over. CarbonGate isn’t going to get the attention of the audience we need to lure in, namely average people who just read the newspaper & accept it as the gospel truth.

    There aren’t going to be any Congressional hearings on this. This isn’t comparable to Watergate. There is no Woodward, no Bernstein, and no Deep Throat. And even if there were, the media wouldn’t cover it.

    Which is why we have to become the new media, especially while the current media is struggling to survive. Not just individual sites like WUWT, but a virtual intranet within the internet.

    Start thinking outside the box, people. Think big. Think outside the box. I’ve read enough here to know what audience I’m talking to. This isn’t some blog with uneducated people chiming in with stupid, uninformed comments. We’re fully capable of completely dismantling the 4th branch of government that continues to prop up this theory despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence left to support it. And that’s what it’s going to take if we want to prevent this travesty of “science.”

    I’m off my soapbox now, but somebody’s gotta say this. May as well be me. We have to start catering to an audience outside of ourselves.

  48. Question: What type of thermometer would have been available in 1859?
    A Seemans Drug store (the oldest in Calif.) was reported in our newpaper to have recorded temps of 103, 106 & 105 for June 21st – 23rd of that year.
    The 22nd breaks the alltime record with the other two right behind it.
    Cost would not have been a factor: the place was awash in gold.
    What would that instrument have been and what would it’s accuracy be?

    REPLY: probably one of these

    But exposure was the issue. The Stevenson Screen was not really put into standardization until after the US Weather Bureau was created by an act of Congress in 1892. Prior to that, a wide variety of exposure techniques were used, including north walls of building and under trees, plus some early types of shelters/ If you look at graphs of temp data from the late 19th century is GISS next to early 20th century, you’ll often see a “settling down” of the signal as standard exposure techniques were put into use. Can’t say how accurately the thermometer at Seemans was exposed, but the mercury in glass units of the era should be about +/- 1 to 2 degrees F worst case, some were better. – Anthony

  49. Note that this has been around in previous incarnations since 2007. And the EPA didn’t have time to address these issues? Not enough time? What were they DOING with it?

  50. Having just spent $3,000 this month to get my teeth fixed, I am not that convinced that Americans have better teeth than before the introduction of Flouridation. If so, then Dentists would be obsolete today.

    That doesn’t follow. (And, anyway, we do.)

  51. Jeff Alberts (22:04:15) I, too was suprised at the use of the ‘c’ word, seems very inappropriate.

    Keep up the ood work Anthony and crew!

  52. Just Want Results… (21:25:47)

    We shall see what we shall see. Gave Drudge another suggestion with multiple links to show him how the story’s developing. Let’s see if Drudge offers up a Carbongate story…

  53. Leon Brozyna (22:27:35) :

    I don’t think he shies away from a hot story. I fact I think he would love to be the one who breaks the story open. It wouldn’t be the first time he has done such.

  54. Now Obama is being brought to rescue the bill… considering that all his economic plan hinges on getting the carbon tax revenues, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Dictatorship or democracy? We’ll soon find out.

  55. ” Just Want Results… (22:39:01) : …a hot story.”

    correction :

    I meant a hot potato story

  56. I sent it to them too, and Steve Milloy, Rush, Sean, Marc… Who else?

    Stay up tonight for a while folks, we need to bury these people in emails. This is a good story, and for heaven’s sake, if the elected officials can’t even read the 1200 page bill, maybe they’ll finally skim 98 pages of evidence against it.

  57. AE: Probably 100% spot on… but weather/climate (There is a La nina developing but temps are still falling!), will demolish it eventually.. then the lawyers will be sought LOL. My impression is that the news is slowly but surely embeding people because they ain’t seen any warming!

  58. The fact is, as AE commented above, we are preaching to the converted… but the fact remains that this site is “the best Science Blog” run my meteorologists etc, this will eventually win the day.

  59. The story here is that the EPA is attempting to shove bad science from the shadowy depths of unaccountable ad hoc United Nations organizations down the throats of the American people; and that the EPA, an agency of the government of the United States, is complicit in this demonstrably unscientific force-feeding.

  60. Speaking of preaching to the converted….

    This is the kind of mindset we are up against. This comment by the troll known as dhogaza was left on Joe Romm’s climate progress tonight:

    dhogaza Says:
    June 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet’s energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis?

    Well, Jim Gordon, what’s more likely to kill you:

    1. a small variation of our sun or

    2. Exposure to sarin at a level of 0.1 ppm, about 1/3000th the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Please don’t come back until *after* you’ve tried the experiment.

    =========
    This is the comment that earned the unbelievably vile response from dhogaza

    Jim Gordon Says:
    June 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    I know a great deal about science and the physics of global warming or climate change or whatever the political-science spin doctors are calling it this week. Let me ask a common-sense question with the help from a little elementary school earth science:

    What is more likely to drive global warming or climate change: 1) small variations in our sun, which provides 100 percent of our planet’s energy budget, or 2) large variations in carbon dioxide, an infinitesimally small trace gas in our atmosphere essential to photosynthesis? Many might say the debate is over now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has covered all the relevant science. I would then ask, Have you read the IPCC technical reports? I would be very surprised to find anyone how has read any of them in-depth.

    What readers will find are a number of interesting facts and obvious omissions, one of which is a clear statement that the IPCC does not begin to understand all of the factors affecting our climate, including solar dynamics and cloud cover. The IPCC notes that the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with many other atmospheric trace gases, including water vapor.

    Some facts they don’t publish are: 1) Doubling carbon dioxide concentrations increases plant growth by 33 percent, good news for farmers and foresters, 2) warming stimulates plant growth and on balance is good for the economy and society, and 3) humans are only responsible for 3 percent of all carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere. Therefore carbon cap-and-trade fees and carbon-offset taxes would have to be enormous and draconian to have any significant impact on the planet’s carbon dioxide.

    When all is said and done, the underlying reality is that nothing has done more to make our planet green over the past several decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of the source.

    The most disturbing question is: Why is our government spending so much national treasure to convince us that 1) warming is bad when it is not, 2) carbon dioxide is largely responsible for warming when it is not, and 3) people are largely responsible for carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere when they are not?

    ==========

    “dhogaza” rules the roost at Romm’s and most of the time at RC, unfettered.

    This is the face of climate change proponents today.

    Give him no quarter.

  61. They are soooo dim. Too dim even to come up with pap responses off Grist.

    How dumb is THAT?

    As Eisenhower once put it: “They’re thin, boys. As thin as piss on a hot rock.”

    Or as per Lincoln: “Like the homeopathic soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.”

  62. Great stuff – I am distributing links to this on UK boards.
    We will win this, AGW proponents are in a minority now and their crying wolf is getting old. I’m a huge Obama fan but he is wrong on this “excuse to tax” & it could cost him 2nd term.

  63. The nerve gas of the guy!

    The Alarmists are becoming ever more terroristic. If they can’t scare you with boiling seas, they try to intimidate you with personal threats.

    We’ve seen this for many years in forestry. One of my classmates was a victim of the Unabomber. “Peaceful” protestors throw bags of excrement and burn down Ranger Stations. A dozen or more eco-terrorists are in the Fed Pen right now for throwing jugs of gasoline into school buildings, burning down ski areas, and blowing up power towers.

    When the radical eco-Left doesn’t get their way, they turn violent. Do not discount their threats. Instead, take names and let them know they are being watched. Speaking of which, what is dhogaza’s real name?

    REPLY: I’d love to tell you, but I can’t. All I can suggest is searching the web with that handle as written. – Anthony

  64. No matter. I figured it out. So can most people, including the FBI.

    dhogaza better hope and pray that none of his threats ever come to fruition. Because if any climate realist (aka skeptic) is ever harmed by a terrorist, he will be getting a knock on his door from the authorities.

  65. Mike D. (23:58:19)

    Mike, he is real easy to find. I’d tell you but Anthony or one of his minions would probably snip me. He does live West of the Mississippi.

  66. Tom Fuller has an update to his article. He interviewed Dr. Carlin who denied leaking the e-mails or report to CEI. The update does not mention that Dr. Carlin confirmed the authenticity of the document on the CEI website but does mention that he was advised to get a lawyer, but doesn’t mention WHO advised him to do that.

    “(UPDATE: Mr. Carlin, who I interviewed this evening, says that he did not approach the Competitive Enterprise Institute and did not know they were involved until a reporter contacted him on Tuesday). 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”

    I’m sure the CEI folks would not intentionally post a fabricated document, but we still don’t have confirmation of the provenance of that thing we’ve been spreading around to our Congress people. A lot of the material looks like it could have come right off WUWT. The document certainly looks like too much effort for a set-up, but then, so do the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  67. “H.L.Mencken wrote:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    It seems to me there are four issues that need highlighting in order to counter the pseudo science that many people either wilfully misuse or
    don’t understand (and consequently switch off from the debate)

    1) The cost that regulating co2 will have on the average Joe (energy hikes etc)
    2) Unreasonable restrictions on business that will bring with them a further hike in costs to the consumer
    3) The freedoms we will lose when ‘irresponsible’ use of carbon is taxed and regulated (travel etc)
    4) Explainmig why a ‘polluting’ gas shouldn’t be reguilated, as doing so will bring innumerable benefits to the world (according to those promoting their environmental and political ideology

    We know the climate hobgoblins are scurrying round a climate emperor who has no clothes, but a lot of people want to be ‘led to safety’ and they appear to be the only hobgoblins in town!

    Tonyb

  68. The document states it’s an expansion of two previous documents by the same author. That makes me think that its chances of not being genuine are extremely remote.

  69. I’ve seen and taken note of dhogaza posts for awhile on other sites and now googling and reading their comments in more detail, most being very crude and inflammatory. There’s a disturbing trend I’ve noticed, Anthony’s name being mentioned in posts with anger from them, even when no connection to WUWT was mentioned.
    This person is obsessed with you and appeals to the lunatic fringe. This not about what dhogaza might do or not, but him being the internet instigator that might make you the lighting rod for Internet crazies if this energy bill is delayed. Seriously, please be careful.

    Sincerely,

    Lance from BC Can.

  70. Aaagh, quit your griping fellas! You should be used to being deceived & lied to by the EPA. What with DDT, Passive Smoking (no matter how noble a cause, lies should not be dealt in), Polar Bears, now Carbon Dioxide, & all the rest that will cause “wagtd”. We have had it over here for yeyears only it’s executed by the Civil Service at the unnofficial behest of government.

    A note of caution, MJ has passed away suddenly, a rare musical talent lost to the world but who had major issues, & Farah Fawcett – a beautiful woman & wonderful actress, lost to the world, may she rest in peace – as they say over here, “Now is a good time to bury bad news”!!!!!!!!! Watch the msm carefully to see what slips by unnoticed. MJ’s death was announced on a major radio station @ 6:00am today, three shows later & we’re on our 5th MJ tune already.

  71. evanmjones (01:16:15) :

    You may be right… but I’d still feel lots better with solid verification. Dr. Carlin’s name has already been associated with it, he’s denied leaking it, someone advised him to retain an attorney… can’t he just say “Yeah, that’s the second draft, alright, but I didn’t leak it. I wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing…”

    Hmmf. I also want you to know that if this whole thing does blow up in our faces, I’m NOT a big enough man to refrain from saying “I told you so!”

  72. May I suggest that if it’s shown that scientific data about the effect of oceanic oscillations on the global climate has been suppressed that we refer to its revelation as Watergate, thus completing the cycle.

    Reply: Consider yourself high-fived. ~ charles the moderator

  73. I haven’t read the draft report that CEI posted but I did have a look at the bibliography.

    I think some other good papers Al could have referenced or per

  74. Damn, slipped on the keyboard.

    Anyway some good papers he could have used:

    Chylek et.al 2007 Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S04, doi:10.1029/2007JD008740.

    Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth. Energy & Environment, 20, 178-189

    Spencer and Bracewel, 2008 Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration

    Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming

  75. Allowing for it being a draft, Carlin’s work is an excellent scientific commentary on the issues. Congralutions to everyone involved, particulary the EPA people.

  76. Read the Skeptical Enviromentalist about 3 years ago Never gave another thought to the LIE of global warming …Though i do think the Congress needs a good addressing behind the woodshed i think we would run out of switches before common sense will move back in on this subject to much lobbying and power involved now !

  77. Nice heads up, Jeez, that offer of a beverage when I’m in your area still goes. SO Fuller is depicting Dr. Carlin as a “whistleblower”… but doesn’t come right out and say that the document on the CEI site is the same document Carlin wrote. Sounds like Dr. Carlin is a man of integrity who is about to ask the Lord to make him truly grateful for what he is about to receive….

  78. rephelan (01:42:17) :

    You may be right… but I’d still feel lots better with solid verification. Dr. Carlin’s name has already been associated with it, he’s denied leaking it, someone advised him to retain an attorney… can’t he just say “Yeah, that’s the second draft, alright, but I didn’t leak it. I wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing…”

    Given EPAs statement to Fuller acknowledging that an employee had contrary opinions that were actually considered by the agency, I also think the odds that this is a hoax are remote. If it were a hoax, EPA would have just denied everything.

    {This just in – Fuller posted notes on an interview with Carlini where Carlin acknowledges writing the report but not giving CEI the e-mails – it’s not a hoax}

  79. reply to: aegeneral

    “Who controls the four branches of government right now, media being the fourth? That’s right.”
    Don’t you see what’s happening? The internet is becoming the fouth estate. MSM is failing commercially everywhere and are engaged in a last ditch stand supporting the catastrophist position. I don’t believe anything I read in MSM about climate change (sorry, warming) and it’s up to us to persuade others to think the same way.

  80. Come to think of it, what was actually the results of the investigation that Copeland and Watts presented herein and that’s referenced to in the CEI work? Shouldn’t there be an update, due to some faulty mathematics? I could be mixing up this with some other related post though, but I clearly remember that there was a big discussion around that time at WUWT. And it was related to the suns effect.

  81. Anthony,
    Was your earlier reply to rbateman (22:14:51) : tongue-in-cheek? These were all clinical thermometers with one actually being identified as “rectal.”

  82. Nomination for quote of the week:

    theduke (23:20:32) :

    The story here is that the EPA is attempting to shove bad science from the shadowy depths of unaccountable ad hoc United Nations organizations down the throats of the American people; and that the EPA, an agency of the government of the United States, is complicit in this demonstrably unscientific force-feeding.

  83. “The fact that the EPA seems baffled about such things, caught flatfooted, speaks to a sort of monumental, colossal, nay, magnificent ignorance and incompetence.
    …But, holy canole, the EPA — supposedly — ARE the experts! And they reveal themselves to be . . . boobs! Flatheads! Not unlike an English professor who has never heard of Shakespeare.”-Evan Jones

    Mannnn, I wish I had said that.

  84. It looks to me that the contents of this censored report have all been taken from the pages of WUWT !

    I think Watt and all the contributors here are having an effect on policy.

  85. Henry Galt (04:57:37) :

    Dhogaza at Antievolution.org on June 29 2006 wrote
    “Now interesingly, my background’s not that different in some ways. I wrote a Basic compiler for the PDP-8 while in high school which was marketed worldwide. The summer ‘tween high school and university was spent writing a multiprocessing kernel for the same machine, making more money than my father while doing so. And before graduating from university I co-wrote the compiler technology upon which my compiler technology company was founded (alas, the industry evolved, and we became extinct after fourteen years in business).”
    Oh No! could there be two of them?

  86. It is apparent that the author was just trying to tell the EPA to slow down and note there is lots of science that questions the track the IPCC and the climate models are taking. In essence, he was presenting the sceptics case.

    Regulating CO2 is a very, very big step and ALL of the science should be clear and proven before taking such a step.

    It is clearly a Bold stance for an EPA employee to take. To take on the IPCC with an internal but thorough and scientifically backed-up formal paper.

    But what it also says is that any dissent, even based on the same science that Hansen developed, is going to be suppressed.

    The more these papers get out and the more that temperatures do not keep up with the predictions, the suppression will pass. This paper is likely a moderate step in that direction.

    And congratulations to Mr. Carlin and the NCEE and to everyone who contributed in some manner to this paper – and there are many of them reading/moderating this post.

  87. Henry Galt (04:57:37) :

    dho gaza:

    [snip]

    My interaction with Dhogaza on Joe Romm’s site led me to believe English might not be his native language.

  88. Yes, dhogaza is a bit unhinged, but then aren’t all bird people? Why his personality is important or worthy of discussion here is beyond me.

  89. Oh, and this is almost certainly the quote of the week:

    “The bottom line is whether or not the IPCC is wrong or right about the significance of increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in increasing global temperatures–it is amazing how few people have asked that question. What’s happening in Australia (where a Senator Fielding is holding a ‘mini-debate’ with skeptical scientists and administration advocates of an Australian cap and trade policy) is fantastic–why can’t we do that here? Models, good or bad, don’t prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis about the real world. I’m dreadfully concerned that we may be taking an ineffective and extremely costly action, and after six years of working on climate change I might be able to help–but I’m not allowed to.”

    -Alan Carlin

  90. Let the smears begin I will share a few smear approaches used by radicals.
    1 His education will be insulted. Of course it was enough to get hired there so that won’t work. His degree in Physics? so is Joe romms
    2 He is in the tank with Big OIL Big oil can’t give EPA hands money. called bribes
    3 He is a denier so are the Muslims. We all deny something
    4 This is all the fault of a 3rd party (check the incriminating internal e-mails)

    Joe Romm is working up his geothermal venting as we speak and can’t erupt because today is the big vote day.

  91. We have an old saying in the oil patch, “If the Yankees don’t like the price of oil, they can freeze in the dark for all we care.”

    Cap & Trade is idiotic enough; but an Endangerment finding would enable the EPA bureaucrats to regulate CO2 as they saw fit. The EPA would not have to consider economic effects; nor would they even have to consider whether or not the regulations would “repair the climate.”

    People were wailing about the price of oil last summer…Well, if the EPA gets its way and if Cap & Trade is signed into law…They ain’t seen nothing yet.

    I just wish I could be around in 20 or 30 thousand years when the glaciers return and bull-doze the Blue States into the ground…;)

    Kudos to Mr. Carlin and “Anonymous” at the EPA, Mr. Kazman at the CEI and Anthony & the WUWT staff for shining the light of day on the EPA’s duplicitousness!

  92. bill (06:46:27) :
    Also why are plots of data taken from Blog sites-Surely to be taken seriously data should be obtained from the source?

    Maybe you shouldn’t assume that a draft report is the same thing as the finished article.

  93. Carbongate.org
    Well, the name Carbongate is already taken by the “other side”, hope they will consider it just a free advertisement…

  94. “Why his personality is important or worthy of discussion here is beyond me.”

    DHO gaza’s personality is important because his behavior on several sites shows that he is nothing but a troll who is uninterested in any substantive, honest conversation. Trolls add nothing and seek only to drag a thread down to their gutter level, at which point they can proclaim the blog is worthless and no one should give any credence to what they say. It’s a nasty trick aimed at destroying the host blog.

  95. Michael D Smith (04:26:56) :

    I thank you for the nomination and I humbly accept. I’d like to thank my mother, my father, my God and all those who made this possible.

    Seriously, I think the honor should go to Mr. Carlin, whose eloquence, perseverance and courage have gotten this ball rolling.

  96. Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute (20:43:25) :
    For those who think CarbonGate is Orwellian, here’s CEI’s 80-second take on that metaphor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0

    Cool take on the classic Apple/1984 ad (which actually appeared in 1984 with the introduction of the first Macintosh).

    Idle question: Did the CEI get permission from Apple?

    /Mr Lynn

  97. WSJ

    As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

    Good for the Australians.

  98. A lot of people out there despise the CEI . I think they do great work , and have told them so – withdonations .

  99. [snip]

    Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt had better think it through, too. When they post hate banter and threats against others from dhogaza, Romm and Schmidt become culpable in any real violence that might take place in the future. They become inciters.

    And should violence against climate realists happen, they open themselves up for king-sized lawsuits. The paltry excuses Romm offered after his “strangulation” posting will not hold up in court. High-powered attys representing grieving widows will make mincemeat of, “I was only making a prediction.”

    So a word to the wise: don’t step into the menacing trap. If you make threats, you will be punished, even if it’s not your hand that throws the actual bomb.

  100. Did the suppression begin even prior to the current administration? The previous one was luke warm (pun semi intended) regarding rightful skepticism of “killer AGW” – even at the very top, there was a conflicted notion that AGW is “real” and “serious.”

  101. It seems your thread has caught Gavin’s attention enough for him to write “Bubkes.”
    I responded as shown below, but the piece “under review” and is unlikely to surface there.

    In “Bubkes” the refutation appears to be largely repeating CEI’s criticisms, as if that is enough, coupled with mention of the author’s credentials. Perhaps Professor Happer’s credentials are more acceptable? They do appear to be closer to the subject matter than, say, astronomy.

    Gavin Schmidt is quoted to have stated “Climate research should be as open and transparent as possible” so in the interest of open debate, may I suggest your readers look at “Global Warming and Climate Change in Perspective: Truths and Myths About Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models.” by William Happer (April 20, 2009)
    Ref: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5441

    REPLY: Its funny. Gavin writes “bupkes” about the report, so if it were so little impact, why would the EPA bother to exclude it. If there was nothing to be concerned about, why not include it in the final report to show how the EPA was thorough? Gavin just did us all a great service. – Anthony

  102. I think WUWT should issue a rebuttal to the criticisms against that draft report on RC. Otherwie, they could smply write it off as bad science and it will gain no traction.

  103. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    Time has just about run-out for the AGW scare, as more and more ordinary people are realising that AGW theory has been well and truly falsified.

    Wonder what will be the next ‘hoax scare’ to hit us? Be interesting to see – they have to have one to keep the population under control and continuing to pay ever higher taxes.

  104. evanmjones (2l:32:19)

    Your comments on the science of fluoride are exactly why so many people are so easily mislead by the AGW arguments. Myths are created by public relations experts and then the general public parrots them as if they are facts. Here’s some info. Fluoride is a toxic waste substance. For many years its only approved use was as an insecticide and a rat poison. It is more toxic than lead and only slightly less than arsenic. The USA is around 65% fluoridated. Over 84% of US children , 96% of adults and 99.5% of over-65 have experienced tooth decay. US CDC figures. “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.” Robert Carton PhD, former US Environmental Protection Agency scientist. Go to fluoridealert.org for the real science, if you are unconvinced engage Paul Connett, PhD. in debate after reading his “Fluoride: A Statement of Concern”. He is to fluoride as Anthony is to climate change.
    Many here complain about the lack of scientific knowledge of the masses, but it’s prevalent among scientists themselves.
    All teeth improved when nutrition improved with or without the addition of fluoride. …And now back to CO2.

  105. WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, today asked Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Oversight Committee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to begin an investigation on the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in developing its endangerment finding.

    The endangerment finding, if formalized by a rule, would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, something U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., once called “a glorious mess.”

    “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.”

  106. This is excellent…. It will be interesting to watch this play out. I feel as this is the final stretch….. The whole ball of string is rolling back down the hill on them, unravelling as it goes…..

    But I won’t be entirely happy until the carcass of the AGW Hypothesis has a wooden stake through it’s black heart, a silver bullet in it’s corrupted body and lies shrivelling, in the cold harsh light of critical scrutiny;-)

  107. Neo (09:25:53) :
    “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.

    Result!

  108. So what’s the punch line?

    Is someone going to be held accountable for ignoring science? Or will they just get a proverbial slap on the wrist for being bad?

    At least give them a government dunce cap!

  109. Funny, Gavin over at RC dismisses Alan Carlin because “[H]e isn’t a climate scientist”

    I hope he also makes the same statement about his idol James Hansen since he is also not a climate scientist.

  110. Ok this report is great, even though it’s just a draft (I imagine it’s going to stay a draft too!). It pretty much sums up the current state of play. Apart from the odd old media personality (Chrisopher Booker for example), I don’t imagine this getting much air time. What a shame!

  111. tj (09:06:26) When my son was born in 1978, we used well water. Concerned about not having flourine in the water, we gave him flouride tablets for the first year. He probably received a higher dose than that acquired via tap water, and never has had a cavity. Most every substance has a toxicity level, but we need trace amounts of many things that are ‘toxic’ in larger doses. Declaring something ‘toxic’ isn’t a valid argument against it, just like CO2.

  112. Probably unlikely that either Waxman or Stupak are interested in launching an investigation . Unless they come under fire for not doing so . Turn up the heat .

  113. TOm it appears you are doing a part II to your article. I would suggest asking the EPA if the IPCC reports have been submitted for review, have they been reviewed by EPA staff, and whether other procedures for using outside scientific material are being followed.

  114. Brewster (10:16:06) :

    Funny, Gavin over at RC dismisses Alan Carlin because “[H]e isn’t a climate scientist”

    I hope he also makes the same statement about his idol James Hansen since he is also not a climate scientist.

    Neither is Gavin Schmidt.

  115. FWIW, on Fox Business Channel the program hosted by Stuart Varney had an AGW-is-bunk physicist on the show (sorry, I didn’t catch his name). Varney asked “hasn’t the temperature been flat the last few years” and his guest said “it was down just a little”. He also solicited email responses… I’d suggest giving him some feedback.

    varney@foxbusiness.com

    The physicist agreed that we’d had warming, but declared that it was probably natural. A little feedback about the “quality” of the measured warming, the cherry pick interval, and the tendency to go down lately, plus waving “Carbongate” as a topic might be well placed. We have a “mass media” outlet that is willing to listen…

  116. “”” Robert Wood (20:12:04) :

    Hell, I just invented the term “Carbongate” in a previous thread only minutes ago. …Darn, those electro-telecommunication thingies just run too fast…:-)

    REPLY: And a fine term it is. – Anthony “””

    Tell me Robert; you’re a Latin Scholar; right ? Is this new term from the same Latin root as ” car-wa-bonga “.

    Sadly I don’t hold out a lot of hope that the CEI release be able to upset the train wreck that is about to go down in the House of Representatives. (but I do heartily endorse their releasing the information.

    American voters must be waking up to the horrors of what really was the mystery inside of Pandora’s Box; and I fear we will wish we had never known.

    George

  117. Just listened to some of the debate on c-span. Plenty of rhetoric about jobs on both sides, but nothing querying the science so far.

  118. Congratulations, Anthony. Your expose on the EPA shennanigans was referenced by Iain Murray today on National Review Online’s “The Corner,”
    http://www.nro.com. That should get WUWT a lot of visitors, and this topic a lot of attention from people who have lost confidence in this administration’s promises of transparency and non-ideological science.

  119. Oh, and per Australia dumping it’s cap and tax bill: Australian markets are continuing to outperform the U.S. markets. I’ve stepped aside from the JJG grain trade (due to the price rolling down after a long run up) and I’m waiting for a re-entry. This is a normal “correction” in a long positive run. Accuweather (on Bloomberg) reported a hurricane lurking in the Gulf of Mexico south likely to be mid gulf next week (look for gas and diesel to rise and maybe natural gas too) as the gulf production is threatened – it will depend on the strength and where it hits). This is a common “hurricane trade” theme. Happens each year. Rises on the risk, sell when the track is known (any gain is already in by then, don’t wait for the actual results, they are not as bad as the panic expects).

    One other sidebar: Another guest on Varney’s show runs a fund based on the thesis that when government is out of session, stocks do MUCH better. ALL he does is by the S&P 500 when congress is on vacation and hold cash or equivalent when it is in session. In the last year+ a bit his fund has lost about 2% while the S&P is down over 25% … An astounding outperformance. A trick I’ll be adopting in some modified form. I’ve used the tag line “The Ministry Of Stupidity Speaks” for the market drops that happen when some government turkey says stupid things and drives market drops – never thought of using it congress wide ;-) Congress is on vacation next week through July 5. Hmmm…

    So Cap and Tirade may pass the House today, today Dow is down. Next week nothing will happen in congress. Then the Senate returns next month… I think I can work with that 8-}

    Oh, and the oil companies have started to “leak” that if Cap & Tirade passes, they will import more products from overseas and shut down refineries here in the U.S.A. India just had a large refinery built “for export trade”… as did Saudi Arabia. Gee, wonder where we’ll be buying our gas?…

    But we will be reducing our carbon emissions from refining… and that will be saving the planet! The government told me so!!
    /sarcoff>

    Oh, and the Canadian oils have strongly outperformed the U.S. oils (PCZ PetroCanada, which I own, and SU that I wish I owned, in particular). Folks clearly expect the “products” to come from outside the US and expect congress critters to, well, speak…

  120. “”” Steve Keohane (10:20:42) :

    tj (09:06:26) When my son was born in 1978, we used well water. Concerned about not having flourine in the water, we gave him flouride tablets for the first year. He probably received a higher dose than that acquired via tap water, and never has had a cavity. Most every substance has a toxicity level, but we need trace amounts of many things that are ‘toxic’ in larger doses. Declaring something ‘toxic’ isn’t a valid argument against it, just like CO2. “””

    What you say may be true Steve; but has it ever occurred to you just how insane it is to put fluoride in the water. Public water supplies comprise billions of gallons used every year. less than one part per million of public water supplies is actually drunk by human beings; yet they dose the whole lot. Why not add cough syrup and oral contraceptives to the water too.

    Industry on the other hand spends millions of dollars every year just to take out all that useless fluoride that do-gooders add to public water supplies.

    Why did you give your kid fluoride tablets; doesn’t he brush his teeth. You can get all the fluoride anyone needs if you use a fluoride toothpaste; which is sold specifically for tooth care.

    I’ve never ever purchased toothpaste; or shaving cream either; both are simply a waste of money; and I don’t drink tapwater; I can’t stand the stink of the chlorine they put in it (ozone killer); but I do recognize it may be necessary to keep even more dangerous things out of public water supplies.

    A kid who takes fluoride tablets, and drinks tap water, and brushes his teeth with fluoride TP, will end up with fluorine poisoning. Parents could at least control their kids fluorine intake, it it wasn’t everywhere around them; like in public water supplies.

    Yes I do have good teeth; a result of eating good food.

  121. It’s a peculiar thing. the legislature sets up these agencies to “do the science” for them and then to also make rules. It makes sense to me in the context of something like game laws – you have an agency that watches the conditions and sets bag limits. In the case of this greenhouse gas thing though, it seems everyone is ignorant but most won’t admit it (experts especially). Nothing good is going to come of this until people start admitting the science isn’t settled, and I can’t imagine how that is going to come about. Small parts of the science may be settled but most points of the grand thesis are uncertain. Monckton produced a nice list of the things that needed to be proven for anthropogenic global warming to truly be a crisis. Now I am damned if I can find it….. He’s got a lot of good stuff out there.

  122. Tell me Robert; you’re a Latin Scholar; right ?

    Latin is one of those things that you hate taking but you love having taken.

    Dixunt Caesares bellici
    Vini veni vidi vici

    So what’s the punch line?

    We get punched.

    Reagarding dhogaza – are we ruffling some feathers?

    Scraping a few scales, maybe.

    I’ve seen and taken note of dhogaza posts for awhile on other sites and now googling and reading their comments in more detail, most being very crude and inflammatory.

    Well I have learned a few new words from him. Well, okay, not very nice words.

  123. evanmjones (12:19:50) :

    Latin is one of those things that you hate taking but you love having taken.

    Good point. I actually enjoyed Latin at school and came second in the class. I particularly recall the phrases: “sic biscuitus disintegratum” and “nil carborundum illegitum”.

  124. The story has been picked up in NYT:
    Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate ‘Endangerment’ Proposal
    By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire
    Published: June 26, 2009

    Two U.S. EPA career employees detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency’s “endangerment” finding in a report released last night by a conservative think tank. . . . “What’s happening here is that the EPA is cooking the books,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking member of the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming. “They have suppressed a study that completely blows apart the scientific underpinnings of the endangerment finding that the EPA administrator made on CO2, and this study has been suppressed because it does not fit the Obama administration’s political objectives.”

  125. E.M.Smith (11:24:39) :

    “One other sidebar: Another guest on Varney’s show runs a fund based on the thesis that when government is out of session, stocks do MUCH better. ALL he does is by the S&P 500 when congress is on vacation and hold cash or equivalent when it is in session. In the last year+ a bit his fund has lost about 2% while the S&P is down over 25%”

    On its face, that’s not all that impressive. You would expect in a bear market that you could cut losses by not participating during the full year. After all, if he held cash equivalent for both the preriods when Congress was in session, and out of session, he would cut his losses further. If Congress was on vacation for 1/6 of the year (2 months) then that alone would count for a cut from 25% to about 4% just because you are not participating in the declining market for 5/6 of the year.

    • Thanks Tom, someday I’ll tell you about how I used to be completely on the other side of this issue, and actively worked to mitigate CO2 with 174 TV stations in the USA. – Anthony

  126. Of course RealClimate does not agree with the paper.

    But then, GISS has never published a climate model forecast that has been anywhere near accurate yet.

    Has anyone seen one?

    More accurately, GISS has only published one forecast that could be checked against actual temperatures and it is off by more than half so far. (And they put the 2003 hindcast version of Model E on-line and its components would be way off as well if extended forward).

    All the other GISS forecasts are demonstrated by a thick squiggly line drawn in “crayon” going out to the year 2100 so one can’t check it for accuracy until 40 or 50 years from now.

    They need to publish some forecasts that can be checked for actual predictive power. Would any other field of science accept projections from a model that doesn’t produce any figures or projections that can actually be reviewed – we are just supposed to accept their word in effect.

  127. Tom Fuller (13:01:59) :
    Two second take-away: You guys are the good guys. Hope you’re the right guys, too.

    “Since the ‘warmist’ position seems to be that the discussion cannot be reopened at all costs, it leads to an impasse where the ‘warmists’ tend to look truculent and arrogant, while the skeptics look reasonable and rational. Which could end up very wrongly deciding the politics of this issue instead of the science.”

    Tom, thanks for the praisee. A quick question about the quote from the end of the article above.

    Did you mean that the warmists refusal to debate means the politicians will have to base their decision on out of date science?

    Or did you mean the skeptics appear to be more reasonable and rational and this could falsely influence politicians instead of them basing their decisions on the science ?

    Or did you intend the ending to be ambiguous to keep both feet on the fence as an impartial observer and to allow both sides to take away their own interpretation?

    Or did you mean something else completely?

    Thanks and well done for raising the profile of the issues around the EPA’s actions in this affair.

  128. To Steve Keohane. Fluoride literally kills in very minute doses. Children have died in dental chairs. Let me quote Dr. James Sumner at Cornell University, an early opponent. “We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances… We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason thins are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plans die.”
    “It is known that many enzymes are inhibited (poisoned) in test tubes at the level at which water is fluoridated (1ppm) or less.” (Dr. Paul Connett.) Every system in your body needs its enzymes, can killing them be worth the risk?
    I, too, followed standard dental procedure with my children, but later after looking at both sides of the issue, I am filled with remorse that I did. Continental Europe does not fluoridate or chlorinate yet their citizens are at least as healthy, and, I am guessing here, probably more healthy than US citizens.
    I only go back to this off-topic issue because it explains so well why so many are confused and misled about AGW. Please read the REAL SCIENCE and, like Anthony and AGW, you will no doubt change your stance.

  129. tallbloke (11:10:36) :
    ‘Just listened to some of the debate on c-span. Plenty of rhetoric about jobs on both sides, but nothing querying the science so far.’

    CO2 Cap and Tax has never been about science. It has always been about a New Tax Revenue stream. Next New Tax Revenue stream will be a tax on Oxygen.Then, we will truly have an incoming and outgoing Tax system.
    Taxed with every breath we take!

  130. Great summing up from Joe Barton. And he raised the EPA suppression of Carlin’s report too!

    Well done Anthony and the WUWT team and contributors, and thanks again to Tom Fuller for his quick work.

  131. i am ot familiar with us law, but isn’t this issue also worth a letter to the district attorney to initiate a criminal investigation ?

  132. John Boehner is going through the 300 page amendment page by page. And the speaker supports his extra use of time. Awesome.

  133. Reading the draft, it sounded like a summary of WUWT since I began reading it. The report looks like it included most of the skeptic views on global warming. I think the point really was not that each and every area was right or wrong but that there was still a lot of disagreement on climate science and what the future holds.

  134. re tallbloke comment above regarding John Boehner,
    I have never used the C-span service before, does it usually break up as much. ?
    That said, I think he may well have turned the “debate”.
    Whatever the outcome I look forward to the future reports of his speech,
    it appears to be a turning point regarding AGW / consensus “tactics” and methods.
    I wonder if this is the American version of the “politicians expenses” in the UK,
    ie something so absolutely unjustifiable that the 3.09am “amendent” will open many peoples eyes to what has been happening for long, to so many quiet unsung heroes (usually referred to as actual, real, honest scientists, and bloggers, interested amateurs)..

  135. I hope Tom Fuller is prepared for the drubbing he is going to be receiving for daring to say that maybe, just MAYBE, the science isn’t settled. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the skeptic position, but a stand against the orthodoxy, none-the-less.

    I hope, whatever side he considers himself on, he retains his courage.

  136. Here’s another intrepid columnist who is unafraid to report the suppression story:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/epa-plays-hide-and-seek-suppressed-report-revealed/

    There are not very many out there in the (cyber) space we have access to. MSM has put their hands firmly over their eyes on this one.

    Mr. Carlin appears to be a man of integrity who should be staunchly defended from reprisal of any kind. The only way to the truth is to protect those who deliver it.

  137. once you understand that global warming happens naturally at .05% every 100 years, there is really no reason to panic. I have not followed any of the hoopla behind it although the media once again wanted to strike fear in the bleeding hearts of the masses…Gore a scientist and ecologist HAH

  138. Belated response to Mr Lynn (08:28:08):

    In regard to CEI’s “Al Gore 1984″ video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0, Mr. Lynn asks whether we requested permission from Apple Computer before we did a makeover of its ad. The answer is no–we concluded that what we were doing was fair use. The two main reasons for this are 1) Apple apparently never tried to stop an anti-Hillary remake of its ad when she was running against Obama; and 2) the fact that Al Gore serves on Apple’s Board of Directors makes our ad a parody–which is strongly protected by the fair use doctrine.

    By the way, for you South Park fans, watch the t-shirt of the heroine in our video–you may see the dreaded ManBearPig!

  139. Dave Middleton says:

    Brewster (10:16:06) :

    Funny, Gavin over at RC dismisses Alan Carlin because “[H]e isn’t a climate scientist”

    I hope he also makes the same statement about his idol James Hansen since he is also not a climate scientist.

    Neither is Gavin Schmidt.

    First of all, Gavin does not dismiss Carlin because he isn’t a climate scientist. What he says is this:

    First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem – perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? – but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove).

    And, then he goes on to highlight some of the problems in their analysis (although he doesn’t even mention some of the worst like references to Beck and showing graphs from ICECAP as if they represent a legitimate source).

    Second of all, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen have both published extensively in the top peer-reviewed journals in the field of climate science (Gavin’s publications since 1996 are here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html ). Ergo, they are climate scientists by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that their PhDs were not actually in “climate science” but rather in allied fields (Hansen’s being in physics or astrophysics and Gavin’s being in math or applied math, I believe) does not mean that they are not climate scientists.

  140. Might be worth thinking about that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://cei.org/) has a pretty clear political POV that they adhere too. Not too far from the Church insisting that the Sun rotated around the earth those many years ago (they had all kinds of studies and experts by the way. Many of which would fit in well here).
    Just consider the source of the information. Why they want to advance this particular agenda. Then, take off the crazy-hate hats lined with tinfoil and move forward by looking for truth and scientific study of the issues. When I hear people going so over the top, it does NOT advance your POV. My guess would be the truth is in the middle somewhere. That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do. That’s understood. Ain’t evil, it’s just life. So be a bit more cautious when hearing ‘science’ produced by and from their shills. I clearly remember a lot of science produced by the tobacco industry that showed how nicotine was hardly addictive, and smoking wasn’t that bad for you. Really. (Remember those great ads with the likes of Ronald Reagan in the 50’s talking about how good smoking tasted?) Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.

  141. The CIE isn’t at issue here. The EPA, as a public institution, is. The question is merely whether or not the charges are true. And they clearly are.

    If you don’t like the CIE, go with the Examiner. Or the New York Times, for that matter.

  142. Joel Shore (20:09:02) :

    Joel, there are occassions you make good points, but man, don’t yousometimes get tired of torturing the English Language? Dr. Schmidt is quite capable, sometimes, of using subtle sarcasm in demeaning his inferiors.

  143. anubisxiii (15:29:19) :

    “I hope Tom Fuller is prepared for the drubbing . . . ”

    Ain’t happening, which I take as a hopeful sign of the times. Just read his latest commentary, and the only warm-mongers to drop by were a pitiful pair of the usual – Bore-us, who couldn’t parse a point to save his life but is always good for a ris, and Chris Colouse, which, if ever an original thought strayed into his head, would quickly die of lonliness.

    Joel Shore (20:09:02)

    Gavin didn’t get the point, and you didn’t get that he didn’t get the point. No further comment, except that maybe we need a new term in the lexicon – something like Pseudo-Scientists With Credentials. Not very snappy; have to work on it. Hansen of course long ago abandoned any pretense to the rule of evidence, falsifiability, and all that other tedious science stuff; but then he’s in a class by himself (to put it delicately).

    mfearing (22:52:26) :

    Great idea – conservation of spit and anger; only so much to go around and Entropy lurks. And while you’re at it, how about dispensing with the drive-by smears – a tactic so beloved of the eco-lobby and certain Pseudo-Scientists With Credentials, say, Mike Mann (re: his latest hissy fit when Steve McIntyre had the unmitigated cheek to shred his & Steig’s fluff piece about Antarctic warming, and, by the by, expose Gavin’s plagiarism).

    What’s that you say? You have solid evidence that CEI is funded by the Evil Energy Cartel; is their back-pocket shill? By all means, let’s see it.

    BTW, another hopeful sign of the times: Paul Sheehan, the George Moonbat/Ross Gelbspan of Australia, has just done a 179-degree about-face, in the face of Ian Plimer’s damning indictment of the Climate Change Cartel (“Heaven and Earth” – buy it today). The AGW ship is foundering and the smart rats are clambering for the life boats.

  144. . . . the fact that Al Gore serves on Apple’s Board of Directors makes our ad a parody–which is strongly protected by the fair use doctrine.

    1. That Gore is on Apple’s board speaks to his technical acumen, contrary to all the parodies. Of course, for pure humor, we never let facts get in the way.

    2. That this was a parody speaks also to the fact that it is humor, and not fact. Never let facts get in the way.

    3. That CEI uses grating and denigrating parody speaks to the lack of technical acumen and lack of facts in the rant. Were CEI a serious organization with facts, such a parody wouldn’t be part of the public release mission. When was the last time you saw such a thing being done by any serious science organization?

    Never forget that CEI is first and foremost a public relations operation with a bias against environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, and non-poison methods of fighting malaria, to pick three.

    Has CEI ever championed a noble cause, or any cause without money?

  145. “Never forget that CEI is first and foremost a public relations operation with a bias against environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, and non-poison methods of fighting malaria, to pick three.

    Has CEI ever championed a noble cause, or any cause without money?”

    ‘With a bias against well-meaning but incompetent legislation supported by ‘noble’ morons who are incapable of letting observation or rational thought get in the way of their Pollyanna dreams’ seems to be what you meant ??

  146. Derek (15:25:57) :

    re tallbloke comment above regarding John Boehner,
    I have never used the C-span service before, does it usually break up as much. ?
    That said, I think he may well have turned the “debate”.
    Whatever the outcome I look forward to the future reports of his speech,
    it appears to be a turning point regarding AGW / consensus “tactics” and methods.
    I wonder if this is the American version of the “politicians expenses” in the UK,
    ie something so absolutely unjustifiable that the 3.09am “amendent” will open many peoples eyes to what has been happening for long

    Alas the MP’s expenses scandal will change very little apart from reducing the turnout at elections. People in the UK are so tired of the cycical way politics is done they are stupified by the media into doing nothing to kick the backsides of the self indulgent political class. they play the numbers game, and will take from all, and return just enough to their constituency to ensure continued support.

    Use July the fourth to rally opposition. Claim the ground of the founding fathers. they knew the dangers of big government, and we ignore their warnings at our peril.

  147. mfearing (22:52:26) :

    Might be worth thinking about that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://cei.org/) has a pretty clear political POV that they adhere too. Not too far from the Church insisting that the Sun rotated around the earth those many years ago (they had all kinds of studies and experts by the way. Many of which would fit in well here).

    I think the analogy fits perfectly with the AGW crowd : I have made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts.

    Just consider the source of the information. Why they want to advance this particular agenda.

    Well and good, if one looks also to why the AGW crowd wants to advance its agenda. Follow the money takes me literally to the billion spent in grants to prove AGW.

    Then, take off the crazy-hate hats lined with tinfoil and move forward by looking for truth and scientific study of the issues. When I hear people going so over the top, it does NOT advance your POV. My guess would be the truth is in the middle somewhere. That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do. That’s understood. Ain’t evil, it’s just life. So be a bit more cautious when hearing ’science’ produced by and from their shills.

    I do not see you wary of the science produced of the AGW shills, the establishment after all that is feeding from billions in the public trough. I have not seen more than a few millions given by the “shills” of oil, and that in a few grants and in supporting some institutes. Millions versus Billions. Worth a thought.

    I clearly remember a lot of science produced by the tobacco industry that showed how nicotine was hardly addictive, and smoking wasn’t that bad for you. Really. (Remember those great ads with the likes of Ronald Reagan in the 50’s talking about how good smoking tasted?)

    But, but all the billboards and advertisements come from the AGW camp. The others do not have enough money to produce movies etc.

    Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.

    Amen to this, except that in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.

  148. Ed Darrell (03:01:27)

    I really didn’t expect my comment on the Fair Use doctrine in copyright law, as it relates to our 80-second “Al Gore 1984” video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0, to set off a diatribe against CEI, but I guess your response is the sort of thing that makes life interesting. The video has been watched by thousands of people and, as far as I can tell, many have enjoyed.it. You did not, and I’m not about to criticize your sense of humor (or lack thereof). But do you really think that Al Gore’s serving on Apple’s board “speaks to his technical acumen”? Could it possibly speak, instead, to his political clout?

    The point of our video is that political attempts to restrict CO2 emissions may well produce a “1984”-style society. The war on carbon footprints will become very similar to the never-ending war portrayed in Orwell’s novel, with constantly shifting battlefronts and alliances, all resulting in increasing regulation of our lives.

    As for CEI itself, we don’t oppose tobacco health warnings; we oppose tobacco bans for adults. We’d like to see more environmental resources put into the private-property framework that would protect them, and taken out of the political framework that often degrades them. We take contributions from all sources except government. And believe me, our opposition to bailouts, or to the Tobacco Master Settlement, did not win us corporate support.

    Finally, as for our opposing “non-poison methods of fighting malaria”—yes, we’re against the DDT ban, which is the single deadliest international rule ever created. So far, that is. CO2 restrictions may not be as deadly at the outset, but give them time.

  149. mfearing (22:52:26) :
    Well said!!!!

    There are too many conspiracy theorists in the Anti AGW camp and too many blinkered theorists in the AGW camp.

    This subject is too important for such blinkered debate. If AGW is valid then this juggernaut of AGW will not be stopable before real global damage is done. Action needs to be taken as early as possible. BUT if there is no AGW then some of the decisions being made will affect standard of living in the industrialised countries.

    Some of the AGW beliefs will eventually be necessary to follow whatever happens.

    OIL is NOT an infinite resource
    GAS is NOT an infinite resource
    Nuclear errors are too costly to contemplate
    Coal is polluting

    Wind/Wave/Tidal power will always require backup (gas is most sensible).

    Destruction of the environmet to provide cheap oil/coal (e.g. mountain top removal) should NOT be an option.
    “we do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children”

    Just consider the source of the information.
    I too was suprised that most of the text of this “leaked” document was taken straight from the Anti-AGW blogs. Even some of the AntiAGW terms were used – “alarmists”

    That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do.

    So true!

    Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.

    If only this were possible.!!!

    AnnaV said

    … in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.

    The problem is Anna you too are blinkered and will not admit there may be some truth in AGW.

    This document accuses the variation in TSI with GW.
    There is absolutely no evidence for this.
    There is no 11 year cycle in temperature
    The variation is too small to matter
    TSI has not significantly increased since 1980s
    Contributors here have now started suggesting a new energy that TSI does not measure.

    Who is correct. The science is not setled. If AGW is a fact there is no time left to correct the problem.

    Sane discussion is required.

  150. David Ball (21:58:38) :

    > I think many underestimate the significance of this blog. Even those of us who post here.

    What a busy few days! I haven’t been able to participate, but most of what I have to add is added by other folk, so that’s been gratifying this year.

    David’s comment got me thinking about a “singularity” ala Vernor Vinge’s stories about technology riding a hyperbolic curve rather than an exponential. Ray Kurzweil looked at the idea in his book “The Singularity is Near.”

    Things are coming together faster than I expected this year. At first I thought that this might be the media that learns that the science isn’t settled, but Australia looks like its parliment will defer their cap and trade, and so much stuff has gone on recently with the ICCC conference in Washington (that had a big impact on Australia’s Senator Fielding), the NCDC talking points, Carbongate, etc that we may indeed be on a hyperbolic curve. Carbongate especially – an EPA document that was supressed internally that has may references to WUWT and surface stations. That’s something that we weren’t active on, but played a big role in its creation.

    Two characteristics about hyperbolic curves:

    1) In the case at hand we’re talking about a curve that increases and has a vertical asymptote, a line that it approaches but can’t pass.

    2) The rising hyperbolic looks a lot like an exponential curve, the best sign of the difference is that the slope increases faster than on an exponential, but it’s only clear when you’re close to the asymptote.

    Of course, time (the X axis) will pass the asymptote, and mathematically the Y axis value of the hyperbola will flip negative (hey, a tipping point!) and in our case the analogy will break down. In our case, what might happen? I could see Cap & Trade crash in flames in the senate or Obama deciding to slow things down “for more study.” Stuff could happen that leaves the media in the dust, still talking about Michael Jackson. Early fall snowstorms could push the AGW zealots into being labeled deniers.

    We’ve made from the curse of Interesting Times and are well into Fascinating Times. What comes next?

  151. Story picked up and connection made:
    Carbongate
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

    Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

    This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments.. . .
    Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July….

    One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.. . .
    In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth. . . .
    In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious ideology.

  152. Story picked up by CBS News – Note particularly the impact of suppressing data on any future court proceedings.

    EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
    by Declan McCullagh CBSnews June 26, 2009 11:09 PM

    The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

    Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

    The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
    . . .
    The EPA’s possible suppression of Carlin’s report, which lists the EPA’s John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

    “The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it’s supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming. . . .
    “All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday,” Carlin said. “In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment.” (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.) . . .
    Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin’s report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. “The science is not there to back it up,” Barton said. “An EPA report that has been suppressed… raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don’t have an endangerment finding, you don’t need this bill. We don’t need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision.” (The endangerment finding is the EPA’s decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.) . . .

    “I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. “But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA’s finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues.”

  153. Michelle Malkin updated her column:
    EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed
    By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2009 12:30 AM

    My syndicated column below slams the EPA for suppressing inconvenient truths about Obama’s politicized global warming agenda. As I blogged early Wednesday afternoon, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released e-mails detailing how eco-bureaucrats stifled a senior researcher who challenged the agency’s reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas “public endangerment” finding.

    Breaking late tonight, CEI has released the draft version of the censored study that the EPA doesn’t want you to see. You can read the entire 98-page document here.

    Here is the preface, which begins, “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.” No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin (click on image for full-size):

  154. EPA’s Culture of Suppression
    In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a severe abuse of science by the EPA’s culture. Today’s “transparency” mantra appears to have amplified this.
    Voices of EPA Scientists

    Survey: EPA Scientists (2007): Human Health and the Environment Depend on Independent Science
    Download: EPA Survey Brochure | EPA Survey- Questions and Responses | EPA Report Essay Excerpts: Interference at the EPA: Politics and Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | EPA Survey Results by Office | EPA Survey Methodology and Demographics | Interference at the EPA-Executive Summary | Interference at the EPA | EPA Report FAQs: Interference at the EPA: Politics and Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the simple yet profound charge “to protect human health and the environment.”

    To evaluate how the EPA uses science in its decision making, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Survey, Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University distributed a 44-question survey to nearly 5,500 EPA scientists during the summer of 2007. Almost 1,600 scientists responded. The results show an agency under siege: hundreds of scientists reported political interference in their work, significant barriers to the free communication of scientific results, and concerns about the agency’s effectiveness.

    * Donate
    * Take Action
    * Join
    * Subscribe

    * Scientific Integrity
    o Scientific Integrity 101
    o Abuses of Science
    o Scientific Integrity Solutions
    + Big Picture Solutions
    + Agency-specific Solutions
    o What You Can Do
    o Successes
    * Global Warming
    * Clean Vehicles
    * Clean Energy
    * Nuclear Power
    * Nuclear Weapons & Global Security
    * Food & Agriculture
    * Invasive Species

    Text SizeAAA
    Print
    Email
    Share

    * MySpaceMySpace
    * YouTubeYouTube
    * FacebookFacebook
    * DiggDigg
    * Del.icio.usDel.icio.us

    Home » Scientific Integrity » Abuses of Science
    Voices of EPA Scientists

    Survey: EPA Scientists (2007): Human Health and the Environment Depend on Independent Science
    Download: EPA Survey Brochure | EPA Survey- Questions and Responses | EPA Report Essay Excerpts: Interference at the EPA: Politics and Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | EPA Survey Results by Office | EPA Survey Methodology and Demographics | Interference at the EPA-Executive Summary | Interference at the EPA | EPA Report FAQs: Interference at the EPA: Politics and Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given the simple yet profound charge “to protect human health and the environment.”

    To evaluate how the EPA uses science in its decision making, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Survey, Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University distributed a 44-question survey to nearly 5,500 EPA scientists during the summer of 2007. Almost 1,600 scientists responded. The results show an agency under siege: hundreds of scientists reported political interference in their work, significant barriers to the free communication of scientific results, and concerns about the agency’s effectiveness.

    Jump to Survey Findings:
    I. Findings Are Suppressed and Distorted
    II. Scientists Are Pressured by Outside Interests
    III. Communication Is Discouraged
    IV. Science Goes Unheeded
    V. Scientists Are Disheartened
    Recommendations

    I. Findings Are Suppressed and Distorted
    Large numbers of EPA scientists reported political interference with their scientific work:

    * 889 scientists (60 percent of respondents*) personally experienced at least one type of political interference during the past five years.
    * Among agency veterans (more than 10 years of experience at the EPA), 409 scientists (43 percent) said interference has occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period. Only 43 scientists (4 percent) said interference occurred less often.
    * 94 scientists (7 percent) had frequently or occasionally been “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document.”
    * 191 scientists (16 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”
    * 232 scientists (18 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “changes or edits during review that change the
    meaning of scientific findings.”
    * 285 scientists (22 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”

    II. Scientists Are Pressured by Outside Interests
    Political pressure on EPA scientists comes from the White House, EPA political appointees, and external commercial interests:

    * 507 scientists (42 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in wich “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the
    reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.”
    * 516 scientists (43 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in which EPA political appointees were inappropriately involved
    in scientific decisions.
    * 560 scientists (49 percent) knew of “many or some” cases in which political appointees at other federal agencies were inappropriately involved in scientific decisions. Nearly 100 respondents identified the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the primary culprit.

    III. Communication Is Discouraged
    EPA scientists are not free to communicate their research findings to the media or public:

    * 783 scientists (51 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that EPA policies allow scientists to “speak freely to the news media
    about their findings,” and another 556 had no opinion or were unsure (36 percent). Only 197 scientists (13 percent) agreed that the EPA had a policy of free communication with the media.
    * 291 scientists (24 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they are “allowed to publish work in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals regardless of whether it adheres to agency policies or positions.”
    * Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express concerns about the EPA’s mission-driven work without fear of retaliation; 492 (31 percent) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency and 382 (24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.
    * 299 scientists (24 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “disappearance or unusual delay in the release of websites, press releases, reports or other science-based materials.”

    IV. Science Goes Unheeded
    The EPA does not make consistent use of its staff and advisory committees’ scientific expertise:

    * 394 scientists (31 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’
    findings.”
    * 719 scientists (47 percent) felt that the agency’s determinations occasionally, seldom, or never make use of its scientific staff’s best judgment.
    * 565 scientists (37 percent) felt that EPA determinations and actions are occasionally, seldom, or never consistent with the scientific
    findings contained in agency documents and reports.
    * 553 scientists (36 percent) felt that expert advice from independent scientific advisory committees is occasionally, seldom, or never heeded and incorporated into regulatory decisions.

    V. Scientists Are Disheartened
    EPA scientists reported decreased job satisfaction and concerns about agency effectiveness:

    * Twice as many respondents reported a decrease in job satisfaction (670 scientists or 43 percent) over the past five years as those who reported an increase (328 scientists or 21 percent).
    * 951 scientists (62 percent) said morale within their divisions was fair, poor, or extremely poor; 570 (36 percent) said morale was good or excellent.
    * 696 scientists (45 percent) reported that the effectiveness of their divisions or offices has decreased over the past five years. Only 321 scientists (21 percent) said effectiveness has increased.
    * Respondents are evenly split on whether the EPA is moving in the right direction (624 scientists or 40 percent) or the wrong
    direction (685 scientists or 44 percent).
    * 969 scientists (63 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that their divisions have sufficient resources to adequately fulfill the agency’s mission.
    * 555 scientists (36 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that the “recent changes and closures in the EPA library system have impaired my ability to do my job.” Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) from Regions 5, 6, and 7—where libraries were closed—agreed or strongly agreed.

    Recommendations
    The EPA’s independent scientific assessments are a crucial ingredient in good policy and should never be adjusted to fit a predetermined policy decision. Furthermore, the agency’s findings should be freely available to the public; its regulatory process should be more open and ransparentand less susceptible to White House interference; and its scientists should be free to report political meddling without fear of retribution. Without these safeguards, the EPA cannot possibly fulfill its worthy mission.

  155. Earlier in this thread, I noted that GISS has not had a very good record of accurate forecasting temperatures with its climate models. I’ve charted up all the different forecasts that we can check.

    First, Hansen’s predictions from 1988 – Scenario B, which is close to the actual GHG growth which has occurred, is off by about 0.4C 50% – Scenario C, in which GHGs stop growing in the year 2000, is actually too high as well (but a better a forecast it seems).

    Second, in 2005, GISS put its Model E on-line and although the hindcast stopped in 2003, one can extend its components fairly easily. Off by 0.35C 40% in just 5 years.

    I downloaded the climate forecasts GISS submitted to the IPCC AR4 from the Climate Explorer. They submitted several runs from 3 different models and they are all off by 0.25C 40% in just 3 years.

    Now extend this (20 year, 5 year and 3 year) error rate out for another 90 years and imagine the accuracy.

  156. Now that CBS has had the nerve to carry the story on their “Political Hotsheet” internet page – let’s see them put it on the air. And where are ABC, FOX, NBC, AP, Reuters, Washington Post, etc, etc.?? This is a big enough scandal (suppression of hard science by government agencies) that it deserves a place – dare we suggest – above Michael Jackson’s demise. It is the forward line of transparent government.

    Suppression of facts and 98 page Reports from highly qualified scientists in a government agency is an immediate and irrefutable sign of rot. Higher ups in these bureaucracies dictate policy from top down. More disturbing than the House passage of this bill, is the cancer uncovered inside EPA – which allowed the passage.

    If the Obama Administration is to be respected and taken at their word that this is a new age of transparency in government – then the President himself must answer these charges. He must call a news conference, acknowledge the disease, and detail his countermanding actions. Delay, dismissal, coverup of the rot – will thrust this President into the shoes of Richard Nixon. He has done a good job addressing the “rule of law.” This could be his opportunity to clean house – and he might be surprised at the support he gets acknowledging the disease under his own roof. Cleaning up the environment starts with cleaning up the Environmental Protection Agency. And others that suffer the same disease.

    The President may then argue his energy bill without the anvil that is “global warming.” Were he to drop the onerous, falsified claims of “CO2 endangerment” – he would have an energy, jobs and security bill that might pass muster in the Senate.

  157. Well written Pragmatic. Blimey, there’s some good stuff coming out when people get their dander up. :-)

  158. Ric Werme (05:46:37) :

    “We’ve made from the curse of Interesting Times and are well into Fascinating Times. What comes next?”

    Don’t hold your breath. No, I mean ‘Hold your breath’! (all that pollution when you exhale)

  159. Suppression of facts and 98 page Reports from highly qualified scientists in a government agency is an immediate and irrefutable sign of rot.

    It was an easy read, considering. I did not agree with all of it, but neither did Carlin; he only said it needed to be addressed. In the main, it was quite dead-on. (Unfortunately, in the EPA, that translates as DOA.)

  160. To tallbloke,

    quote away.

    If people put material up on the open internet, it should be fair game to be linked to anywhere (especially if the author says otherwise).

  161. Ron de Haan (14:05:37) :

    Carbongate gets attention from CBS!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/

    CBS, eh? Now the word is getting out. There is an interesting comment on the site by “csuhurricanedept” on June 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM PDT.

    He/she denegrates Carlin by saying that he: “only has a bs in physics”. Now “csuhurricanedept” states that he/she has “dual degrees, my first being an ma in sociology with an emphasis on demography e.g. research methodology and the second an ms in gcec, global climate and environmental change. ”

    It’s just a pity that he/she never learnt how to use capital letters or punctuation somewhere along the way…

  162. Maybe “not a scientist” should not be uttered by people who use the IPCC’s non-peer-reviewed politically edited reports. Conan O’Brien has been doing messages from everyone on TV, where he makes a message using words clipped from many TV shows. Clipping bits from peer-reviewed material is not enough to call the result scientific.

  163. bill (05:19:51) :

    AnnaV said

    “… in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.”

    The problem is Anna you too are blinkered and will not admit there may be some truth in AGW.

    I am sorry, but admitting to something I have researched and do not believe in is not due to blinkers. As a physicist when I started reading the IPCC physics justification 800 pages I had no bias except surprise that such a small trace gas with such a tiny anthropogenic component could move the climate.

    My opinion is a weighted by science opinion that the warming observed has a tiny influence from any anthropogenic gas contribution .( I should except H2O ofcourse, which has a large effect in regions with extensive irrigation, but that is not what we are talking about).

    The global problem is not that this type of bills pass in western countries, I live in the EU and we have survived with the only effect being that Al Gore became richer by selling hot air. It is a pyramid scheme of selling hot air that will enrich already rich people and the bulk of us will pay like the patsies we are.

    The true problem is that selling and buying carbon credits will entrench the dictatorships in the third world and keep it undeveloped. In addition China and India will become the main industrial powers of the globe and inevitably military ones, since they laugh at the west for committing economic hara kiri. How is your chinese, by the way?

    The true problem is that the only way to avoid overpopulating the planet is by developing the third world so that their birthrate will naturally fall. This type of laws ensures that the poor will take recourse to the only enjoyment open to them, having children, and keep up their population boom, their illegal migration boom etc. etc.

    Again, how is your chinese? indians do english well.

  164. The basic truth is that whether or not climate change is at stakes, the primary concern is OF COURSE peak oil and fossile energy in general.

    This is basic, known, key to the economy and a mess in the making.

    Cap and trade is junk, doesn’t work , is moronic, bureacratic, expensive.

    What is required is to put pressure, constraints, to twist investment decisions, and primarily for individual in fact.

    This is why the proposal by James Hanse of a 100% redistributed carbon tax (should be called something else as not really a tax), is what should be done.

    Quote :

    The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

    The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/letter-to-barack-obama

  165. @17:49:40 – I saw the article on Slashdot also. A lot of commenters in the real-scientists-say-its-so camp. One commented on Hansen’s credentials – modeler of other planets climates. Maybe he got the one for Earth mixed up with the one for Venus?

  166. The global problem is not that this type of bills pass in western countries, I live in the EU and we have survived with the only effect being that Al Gore became richer by selling hot air.

    That’s an interesting claim. How does Al Gore become richer by his advocacy on this issue?

  167. Ed Darrell (12:39:17) :
    That’s an interesting claim. How does Al Gore become richer by his advocacy on this issue?

    from a search with Google for Gore +carbon credits:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

    http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

    WND THE HEAT IS ON
    Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’
    paid to firm he owns
    Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

  168. Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ““It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”

    Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ famous quote:

    “The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

    Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”

    And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.

    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

  169. Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ““It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”

    Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ famous quote:

    “The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

    Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”

    And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.

  170. anna v, those stories say Gore spends money to off-set carbon use. I hope this isn’t a revelation to you, but when one spends money, that goes into the debit column.

    In any case, buying carbon offsets is not making money from advocating that we go easy on carbon emissions, even if he weren’t writing the check to pay for it.

    Each of those three sources makes the same allegation. Were there not the fact that Gore is right about the science, it would be a half-way fair complaint. But your saying Gore has a firm that deals in carbon offsets is like noting that the Motley Fool guys sell their newsletter with stock advice. That just means that they have an interest in getting their stock advice accurate.

    Gore has a financial stake in being right. That’s quite contrary to anyone on the warming/climate change/human causation denial side. Only CEI has a financial stake in being wrong, and they only because their clients pay for their error as propaganda.

  171. Ed Darrell:

    “Were there not the fact that Gore is right about the science…”

    What “fact”??

    You should avoid coming across as a clueless fool, Darrell. Al Gore is in error regarding what he presumes to be the ‘science’, which is understandable coming from someone who got a “D” in his college Science class, who flunked out of Divinity School — and who absolutely runs away from any neutral, moderated debate.

    Gore claims that increases in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe within five years; and the polar ice caps will disappear, Florida and London will be inundated, etc.

    Would you like to bet on that result?

    Life has been good to me. I will match your cash bet, up to one million dollars, that Gore is wrong in five years. Loser’s cash to be paid to the charity of the winner’s choice [and the winner receives the tax deduction]. Winner recovers his cash and all accrued interest. All cash [yours and mine] to be deposited into an interest bearing account [I want your interest, too], using a neutral escrow holder. Cash to be deposited not in 5 years… but now. Within thirty days. The terms and conditions can be agreed to regarding Gore’s definition of ‘climate catastrophe’ based on his public statements, using the services of a neutral AAA arbitrator, chosen by lot, and whose decision shall be final.

    Darrell, I’m calling your bluff. Put up or shut up.

  172. Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute (19:45:24) :
    Belated response to Mr Lynn (08:28:08):

    I hope your lawyers are on solid ground with the ‘fair use’ and ‘parody’ defenses of using Apple’s 1984 commercial. Apple’s lawyers are known to be rapacious. And since Algore is on their board, it would not surprise me if he were to urge reprisals.

    In any event, I enjoyed the parody (x2, since the original was itself a sort of parody of the novel).

    /Mr Lynn

  173. Ed Darrell (18:20:58) :

    Gore has a financial stake in being right.
    !!!!
    I rest my case .
    Where I was educated it is called conflict of interest and he should not be in political positions where he can feather his nest.

    Also schools should not be showing his advertisements and all his videos etc should be clearly labeled “advertising”.

    We really are back in the robber baron stage for somebody to come out without tongue in cheek with such a statement.

    That’s quite contrary to anyone on the warming/climate change/human causation denial side. Only CEI has a financial stake in being wrong, and they only because their clients pay for their error as propaganda.
    Right, I and the majority of scientists against AGW have no financial stake and most of the vocal ones are retired like me, because of job security fears.

    What a $%^&*

  174. Joel Shore (20:09:02) :

    “First of all, Gavin does not dismiss Carlin because he isn’t a climate scientist.”

    From “Bubkes”, at RC, comment 8:

    “Henry chance Says:
    26 June 2009 at 9:46 AM

    [Response: What’s your point? He isn’t a climate scientist, he’s an expert in environmental economics. How much Earth Science did you get in physics degree in the 1970s? Even now? One might have expected some basic statistics, but even that is not evident in the paper. - gavin]

  175. And there is now this from Fox News detailing Senator Inhofe’s official investigation into EPAgency suppression of skeptical reports:

    Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Suppressed’ Climate Change Report
    Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

    This, along with Will Happer’s 54 noted physicists demanding the American Physical Society change their stance on AGW. Things are… ahem, heating up.

Comments are closed.