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

By: Jacek Dunajewski

Jacek Dunajewski — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:16:51 +0000

Greenhouse effect – fiction

Greenhouse effect – sequence
1. Energy /The Sun, … /
2. Temperature
3. Quantitative composition /partial pressure: CO2, CH4,…/

By: gary gulrud

gary gulrud — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:54:29 +0000

I’d say Congress(a future incarnation) needs to abolish the EPA and start from scratch without granting unelected bureaucratic ‘experts’ authority to regulate commerce.

By: Ann Zammit

Ann Zammit — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:52:06 +0000

Hey Yvonne, who are you kidding??? The media is in the tank for Obama and the rest of you nut cases. You’re one of those that even if climate becomes cooler, you say, ” well, it has to become cooler to become warmer.!” Climate changes!!!!!!. Michigan used to be glaciers. Climate change changed that! Why don’t you go live in the forest with a kerosene lamp!!

By: evanmjones

evanmjones — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:47:27 +0000

1.) Reports of direct suppression are independently confirmed.

2.) In order for wind to be derailed it would have to be on the rails in the first place.

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:52:58 +0000

Sorry folks, I read the emails and it doesn’t sound like suppression to me. The guy is just claiming suppression. He was addressing a different level than what his group was supposed to be working on.

And sorry, just because someone yells COVERUP doesn’t make it one, and Carlin isn’t a Climatologist. Working at the EPA doesn’t make him an expert on climate. Let’s get the secretaries’ statements in there too, there are plenty of over-educated ones who are actually very smart.

However I’m sure all the pro-coal and oil people will feel totally self-justified for weeks now, and try to derail the wind folks. High-stakes plays going on here, and many media are owned by people with big investments in fossil fuels.

By: Alex J

Alex J — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:26:30 +0000

For those interested in both sides of the story, RC has some commentary on the report.

By: DavidinDavis

DavidinDavis — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:04:41 +0000

Great work getting some daylight on this suppressed report. Kudos all around!

By: Micajah

Micajah — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:32:12 +0000

The New York Times has noticed this story, and noted that Carlin is not alone:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-two-epa-staffers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html

“Dissent on the proposal was expressed in a March 16 report (pdf) by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics.”
“Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA’s economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor’s degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.”

So, if Carlin “is not a scientist,” what is Davidson?

By: Nasif Nahle

Nasif Nahle — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:25:16 +0000

timbrom (12:33:38) :

Nasif

Oh yeah? What about television? I believe it was Lord Reith (the first DG of the BBC) who said that no good could come of such a hideous combination of Latin and Greek.

Yep! It already had been pointed out by Allan [Allan M (04:26:16)]. Television is a wrongly constructed word with a badly evolved politics… Heh! ;)

By: Old PI

Old PI — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15:20 +0000

I can’t remember where I heard it (possibly Heinlein or Pournelle), but the comment was: “If one percent or more of the citizens of any nation can no longer trust their government for even the basic functions government should be responsible for, that government is doomed”. This kind of stupidity makes trusting government on anything about as sensible as trusting a bee not to sting, or a snake not to bite. I also think we’re coming very close to that one-percent threshhold.

By: timbrom

timbrom — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:34:47 +0000

… and then I scroll down and find Allan M has beaten me to it. Mostly.

By: timbrom

timbrom — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:33:38 +0000

Nasif

Oh yeah? What about television? I believe it was Lord Reith (the first DG of the BBC) who said that no good could come of such a hideous combination of Latin and Greek.

By: IBones

IBones — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:59:10 +0000

The Free Press WorldNetDaily has picked up the story. Passing this around would certainly help get the word out.

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

By: john

john — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:26:47 +0000

After reading some of the draft report could it be that part of the problem the report was not considered was because the authors understand the subject better than anyone else in the EPA? Of course they were bringing up things counter to the party line but they may also have been referencing things no one understood. From my following of the whole AGW subject the authors seem quite knowlegible and up to date on current news, studies and controversies. Just a thought.

john

By: John Galt

John Galt — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:00:32 +0000

“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”

- Big Brother, as reported by the Ministry of Truth

By: Allan M

Allan M — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:26:16 +0000

Nasif Nahle (23:31:57) :

“The Environmental Protection Agency is doing antiscience. Nevertheless, I opine that antiscience is a word incorrectly constructed: anti is a Greek root which means “against”, and scientia, which means knowledge, science. The word “antiscience” is wrongly constructed because the combination of Greek roots with Latin roots is not allowed by mixing a bond root with a free root (morpheme), in any language.

The correct word should be contra-science, which has been built with to Latin roots, a bond root and a free root: contra, which means “against”, and scientia , which means “science”. One way or another, EPA is doing contra-science.”

As a classicist once said:

TELEVISION – the word is a mixture of Latin and Greek. No good will ever come of it!

By: MattN

MattN — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:22:20 +0000

I applaud “Anonymous”. Whistleblowers are some of the best American heros. They put the spotlight on corruption.

Thank you Anonymous…..

By: RhudsonL

RhudsonL — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:19:05 +0000

But, Fuller looks so unhappy about what he has done.

By: evanmjones

evanmjones — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:52:41 +0000

One way or another, EPA is doing contra-science.

They have proven themselves too chuckleheaded for that, the poor dears. They can’t handle contra-science. All they are up for is unscience or nonscience, and only if provided by others.

It is clear they can’t warehouse on a salary what the least among us on either side of the debate pick up for kicks.

By: rxc

rxc — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:31:07 +0000

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or one of its licensees, did something like this, the green movement would be all over it for suppressing whistleblowers and dissenters. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but I suspect that the MSM and the politicians who are in charge will just bury it – it is just too inconvenient now.