On June 25th the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a draft copy of the suppressed EPA report by EPA employee Alan Carlin critical of the EPA’s position on Carbon Dioxide saying:
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.
CEI notes that: 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.
I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here, courtesy of our verified contact at the EPA, who shall remain anonymous. For some background on this contact, developed with the help of Tom Fuller at the San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, please read the WUWT story below. The download link is also below.
Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management
The title page of the final report from Alan Carlin of the EPA reads:
Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
By Alan Carlin
NCEE/OPEI
Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009
March 16, 2009
Alan prepared an update to this document which is on page 3, I’m reproducing it here for our readers:
Important Note on the Origins of These Comments
These comments were prepared during the week of March 9-16, 2009 and are based on the March 9 version of the draft EPA Technical Support document for the endangerment analysis for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. On March 17, the Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) in the EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation communicated his decision not to forward these comments along the chain-of-command that would have resulted in their transmission to the Office of Air and Radiation, the authors of the draft TSD.
These comments (dated March 16) represent the last version prepared prior to the close of the internal EPA comment period as modified on June 27 to correct some of the non-substantive problems that could not be corrected at the time. No substantive change has been made from the version actually submitted on March 16. The following example illustrates the type of changes made on June 27. Prior to March 16 the draft comments were prepared as draft comments by NCEE with Alan Carlin and John Davidson listed as authors. In response to internal NCEE comments this was changed on March 16 to single author comments with assistance acknowledged by John Davidson. There was insufficient time, however, because of deadlines imposed by the Office of Air and Radiation, to make the corresponding change in the use of the word “we” to “I” implicit in the change in listed authorship. This change has been made in this version.
It is very important that readers of these comments understand that these comments were prepared under severe time constraints. The actual time available was approximately 4-5 working days. It was therefore impossible to observe normal scholarly standards or even to carefully proofread the comments. As a result there are undoubtedly numerous unresolved inconsistencies and other problems that would normally have been resolved with more normal deadlines. No effort has been made to resolve any possible substantive issues; only a few of the more evident non-substantive ones have been resolved in this version.
It should be noted, of course, that these comments represent the views of the author and not those of the US Environmental Protection Agency or the NCEE.
Alan Carlin
June 27, 2009
UPDATE: Before downloading, please read the paragraph above from Alan Carlin to get some perspective. Certainly, this document is not perfect. How could it be? The EPA gave an internal comment period of 1 week on the most far reaching “finding” the agency has ever dealt with. This short window was unprecedented. So ask yourself, could you produce a paper like this, covering many disciplines outside of your own, that is “perfect” on 5 working days notice?
The EPA’s procedure here is the culprit.
Download the final report from Alan Carlin here, link: Endangerment comments v7b1 (PDF 4MB)
Sponsored IT training links:
Get guaranteed success in 1Y0-A11 exam using best quality 000-200 prep tools including 642-611 dumps and other study resources.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fixed, WordPress has this odd error inserting links to PDF’s that puts in the date twice in the URL – Anthony
For what is called a “scientific report” there are very few references from science–mostly citations of internet blog. I’ve never seen an EPA report or any other scientific report, with so little reliance on scientific studies.
REPLY: The EPA only gave a few days for internal comments, read page 3. The real problem here is not Carlin’s report, but the fact that the EPA threw caution to the wind, and gave a very small comment period internally, which was unheard of for something of such importance. It’s just like our boneheaded Congress adding 300+ pages to the “Climate Change Bill” at 3AM the morning before the vote. Who could refute that with perfect citations in that short of time? Who could do it in a week?
The process is corrupt. – Anthony
Several issues with the EPA in the past related to what is happening now:
1. Browner when head of the EPA for Clinton was sued for trying to silence an insider.
2. Do not understand full set of details, but EPA (same time period) was sued for passing funds to non profit groups with out proper cause.
3. Browner when leaving the EPA supposedly erased all the hard drives(while under court order not to) to cover up 2 above.
4. Supposedly Landmark Legal sued and now has a data base of all EPA grants to enviro non-profits. Waiting to hear back on how to access there data base.
*****************
How much of the stimulus bill funds will show up in the hands of non-profits running agw info-mercials?
When a non-profit org becomes involved in politics, how is there status challanged?
The Ad Council has formed an alliance with the United Way, needless to say, I no longer donate to the United Way
I see Carbongate made the IBD editorials.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432
Comes to mind the old proverb: “Marry in haste; repent at leisure.”
I wrote an email to Congressman Boehner…
http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/
>>>
To House Republican Leader John Boehner:
Sir, I was honored by your speech on the floor of congress in regard to the Climate Bill. For a brief moment I felt as if someone was actually fighting for the American people and their right to have a intelligent debate on this subject.
This Climate Bill is based on false science and run-away ideology. The world’s scientist’s are finally coming out in number to address the false claims made by the IPCC and those alarmists that would have us believe it’s something more than a natural (warming or cooling) cycle.
This bill will cause massive job losses and devastate our economy.
Thank you for your efforts,
Mk
As some who writes and reviews scientific studies, I still don ‘t understand how one can claim a report has been supressed if it is only available in an early draft that is incomplete and in need of fact checking and references. When I write a scientific article I write numerous drafts and often give it to colleagues for informal review, especially if I do not have co-authors who are also experts in the field. Dozens of times a year, I also do this kind of informal peer review for younger scientists from around the world. It’s the author’s resonsibility to make sure that a “scientific report” is accurate and complete before making it public.
Congressional bills, of course, have no resemblance to scientific studies.
On my way home this evening, heard an ad on the radio regarding a young girl who didn’t unplug her cell phone charger when it wasn’t in use…. and advising children to “do their part” to conserve energy. Then quoted a website ending in “dot Gov” How far will this go?
REPLY: There’s nothing wrong with conserving energy. Destroying our energy creating capability with excessive government intrusion and taxes, that’s something entirely different. – Anthony
OT Love this headline!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-s–t-2009-06-27.html
I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here,
I just sent the following quote from the PDF to News Tips at Drudge along with the link to this post here at WUWT.
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming.”
I’m not kidding when I say I want the world to know about this.
Hi all,
After a wearying experience at RealClimate I have developed my own list of what I call ‘Next Generation Questions on Global Warming.’ I’m asking for help from the WUWT community on both the questions and the answers. See here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Next-generation-questions-for-global-warming
Thanks in advance for any help that is forthcoming.
“Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other things.
Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. ”
This is a quote from a review at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
The review concerns Cambridge Professor David MacKay – his site is at
http://withouthotair.com/
I see they pulled out the Dunning-Kruger effect on Mr. Fuller over at RC…There needs to be a Godwin’s Alarmist Law for this…
The report is marred by the two (!) Figures 2.15 using 1) the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI and 2) the PMOD TSI where the decrease of TSI at the present minimum is due to instrumental error.
REPLY: No dispute there Leif, but please read Alan’s statement on page 3. The issue is that the time for comments internally was a week or less, not nearly enough time for a fully fact checked commentary, and this was apparently the only rebuttal. EPA ran turbo mode on this with no cares. Look at the bigger picture, not the details. – Anthony
POLICE EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE!
SLOGAN
Hi Tom Fuller,
Was going to add a comment at the Examiner but the verification image didn’t come through. My comment was:
A few hundred million years of fossil records show that 5-10C extra temperature and CO2 levels 2-5 times present lead to an extremely healthy biosphere (big animals big appetites). The records also show that a CO2 tipping point to runaway Venus hell is a boogie-monster for kids, since nature has abused the biosphere way beyond anything we can imagine and yet, amazingly, it bounces back.
Tom Fuller (23:45:22) :
You may find this helpful :
“Climate Audit Submission to EPA”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354
PDF of Steve McIntyre’s submission to the EPA
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/McIntyre_Submission_to_EPA.pdf
Tom Fuller (23:45:22) :
This may be helpful also :
“Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation”
PDF :
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf
Anthony, you wanted the world to know, it now on Slashdot. http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/27/2314213/EPA-Quashed-Report-Skeptical-of-Global-Warming
Section 1.5 (p. 9-12) on Greenland ice melt appears to be lifted almost word-for-word from Pat Michael’s World Climate Report blog. And there’s no attribution whatsoever as far as I can tell (not to mention that the Carlin/WCR interpretation of van de Wal et al is highly misleading).
See:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/
Hi Tom Fuller too,
Was going to add a comment at the Examiner as well but the verification image didn’t come through for me either. My comment was:
See http://www.informath.org/
“The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”, Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995 (2007). doi: 10.1260/095830507782616913. Remarks.
Bill D. As some who writes and reviews scientific studies, I still don’t understand how one can claim a report has been supressed [sic] if it is only available in an early draft that is incomplete and in need of fact checking and references.
Please Bill, don’t be dense. The report was written in a week because that’s all the time allotted, despite the significant legal import of the EPA’s “endangerment” finding. Do you write comprehensive scientific studies in a week? With all facts checked and referenced? If so, please produce such a document and proof that a week is all you spent on it.
It is unclear that EPA higher-ups even knew that such a report was being drafted. However, when those higher-ups found out about the (hastily written) report, they refused to forward it or to allow it to be seen by the public (or Congress), and they forbade the author from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. The author was apparently reassigned to other duties not commensurate with his (former) position or status. Please see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/the-epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and-apparently-decides-issues-in-advance-of-public-comment/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/
and numerous articles that have appeared in the national media.
All that amounts to suppression and a coverup that was exposed by WUWT and others, thanks to whistleblowers within the EPA.
Now Bill, I don’t argue with your statement that you don’t understand. I take you at your word on that. But (most of) the rest of us get it.
PS to Leif: so you don’t concur on each and every point in the hastily written, suppressed report? Do you not understand (like Bill) that the EPA pushed through the “endangerment” finding with no scientific balance or integrity, incomplete disclosure and review, and some amazingly outlandish and unscientific claims? Don’t you think your criticisms would be more useful if they were directed at the details of the “endangerment” finding that treats CO2 as a pollutant? Personally, I don’t see how nitpicking this report and ignoring the bizarre finding serves science or the public weal.
“Who shall remain anonymous” once again has my public thanks.
For Tom Fuller, the most glaring insight for me is how plants seem to be genetically built for a much higher supply of CO2 but we act as if that is a bad thing. One of my favorite articles here at WUWT is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/09/high-co2-boosts-plant-respiration-potentially-affecting-climate-and-crops/
My favorite paragraph of this article is:
“The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said. “The expression of over 600 genes was altered by elevated CO2 in total, which will help us to understand how the response is regulated and also hopefully produce crops that will perform better in the future,” he said.”
1. Browner when head of the EPA for Clinton was sued for trying to silence an insider.
Thats a constructive start. Time to play rough.