While the GAO issues a report today saying that the US Historical Climatological Monitoring Network has real tangible problems (as I have been saying for years) the Inspector General just released a report this week saying that EPA rushed their CO2 endangerment finding, skipping annoying steps like doing proper review. The lone man holding up his hand at the EPA saying “wait a minute” was Alan Carlin, who was excoriated for doing so.
From Powerline Blog:
Here’s a refresher: in 2009, when the EPA announced its “endangerment” finding to justify its planned regulation of greenhouse gases under 
the Clean Air Act, Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran EPA employee who ran the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, produced a 98-page critique of the climate science the EPA used in its finding. Carlin’s report concluded, “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by the EPA.”
You can guess what happened next. The Obama Administration, the one supposedly dedicated to transparency and “restoring science” in public policy making, squashed Carlin’s report and told him to cease and desist any further analysis on climate change issues. Carlin’s supervisor (a political appointee) emailed his: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc.” Shortly after this episode Carlin left EPA. (By the way, Carlin was the chairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the Sierra Club in California at one time, and helped with the Sierra Club’s campaign to stop two dam projects back in the 1960s. In other words, he’s no right-wing ideologue, as the smears of the climate campaigners would have you think.)
This story is relevant again this week not simply for the obvious hypocrisy and double standard (insert the old joke about liberals and double-standards here), but because the issue of the EPA’s climate science has resurfaced in the form of an EPA inspector general’s report that essentially says that Carlin was right about the EPA’s shoddy scientific review. Here’s the New York Times account from Wednesday:
In a report with wide-reaching political implications, U.S. EPA’s inspector general has found that the scientific assessment backing U.S. EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous did not go through sufficient peer review for a document of its importance. . .
According to the IG report, EPA failed to follow the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review procedures for a “highly influential scientific assessment,” which is defined as an assessment that could have an impact of more than $500 million in one year and is “novel, controversial, or precedent setting.”
In particular, the document was reviewed by a 12-member panel that included an EPA employee, violating rules on neutrality. EPA also did not make the review results public, as required, or certify whether it complied with internal or OMB requirements.
In a statement, IG Arthur Elkins Jr. emphasized that his office “did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used to support the endangerment finding.”
“While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA’s finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all required steps for a highly influential scientific assessment,” he said.
Roger Pielke Jr. observes how the climate campaigners are all circling the wagons, saying “move along, nothing to see here,” and noting that “I’d speculate that these observers would have had different reactions had this report been requested by Henry Waxman in 2006 about the last administration’s EPA. . . during the Bush Administration concern about processes to ensure scientific integrity were all the rage. At that time it was generally understood that process matters, not simply because it helps to improve the quality of scientific assessments, but also because it helps to establish their legitimacy in the political process. One sneers at process at some risk.”
More at Powerline Blog
=============================================================
I’m proud to say that Alan used materials from WUWT in his report, and that he has been vindicated for standing up to the sloppy rush job.
Thank you Mr. Carlin, for having integrity where others did not.
UPDATE: Climatologist Pat Michaels sums up the whole affair pretty well at Forbes: The EPA’s Endangerment Finding Is Very Endangered
“used materials from WUWT in his report”
Yes, it rather showed.
REPLY: And yet, he was right and you’re demonstrating again that you are just an angry troll, contributing nothing but snark here. -Anthony
In Australia at the moment, The impression I am getting as compared to a year or two ago is that the subject is practically dead. No one is interested and there will be no tax as I think Gillard and even the greens realize there is no AGW. This story will probably nail it.
Don’t forget, about a year later, Babs Boxer and Lisa Jackson both testified that even though the endangerment finding said it used the CRU/IPCC “Gold standard,” they really relied on NASA data–which NASA had admitted days earlier was so bad it had substituted the CRU numbers.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/boxer-jackson-admit-epas-co2-finding-based-on-fail/
This surely shows that Carlin is vindicated and it confirms that WUWT is having some impact on getting “it” right, “it” being both the science and the politics.
Let’s hope Carlin is getting proper attention on this and any damage he may have experienced is corrected.
It’s good to see these actions bringing the warmists to account. They’ve had free rein for too long. Whether it be the warmists or the skeptics, most use good science and come to different conclusions. That’s fine. It’s the messages that get politicized and the data and conclusions that are fudged for idealogical reasons that give all climatologists a bad rap. I support some constraints on the EPA to get things right.
Andrew Andrew Andrew… of course they know there is no AGW and the existence of it or not has absolutely nothing to do with their plans to tax tax tax and to take more power. When it is quietest is when you need to fear most because you will never convert these people with facts.
from the co-chair of IPPC…
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.—Ottmar Edenhoffer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
Congrats to Mr. Carlin ! I remember printing his study/report out and reading it in its jaw dropping (at the time) entirety. Ahead of his time in calling the EPA out…
Richard Telford –I suppose if they used material from Real Climate it would have been OK.
The people who contributed to the Inspector General’s report better pray that President Zero is defeated in 2012, or look for new jobs.
The whole idea of “due process when it suits us” around CAGW and CO2 is insult using a broad brush. And for the same people to launch into AdHom tirades when confronted with the double standard (and the crappy science) is basically applying a second coat of tar. Mr. Carlin is old-school, and brave enough to stand behind his principles. Pretty funny that he got smeared as right-wing. Well, not so funny, but certainly illustrative of the apparent eschewing of data and facts by those with the tar bucket.
Yes, Carlin has been right all along. You can read him at http://www.carlineconomics.com
Yes. That was under the direction of the execrable Carol Browner. A lawyer that pretended to be a scientist. Perhaps one of the dumbest, but perhaps the most vicious, to serve in modern times. A true scientific dolt, she demonstrated amply that ignorance and incomprehension was no bar to being in our government.
Folks, this is the end game of CAGW “science” – control of our lives through onerous regulations such as those proposed by the EPA. And, of course, there’s the BILLIONS of dollars in climate ca$h to spread around…
If a senior manager in the private sector was shown to have manipulated a design review process (in an FDA regulated environment) during an audit the senior manager might end up with his office taped shut and his files removed. At a minimum the auditors would be spending a lot of time talking to the senior manager and the members of the design review team……………
Could it be possible to hope that the called for hearings and investigation will disclose the whitewash that was applied to the most incredulous claims the IPCC has made?
I have read quotes where Senator Inhofe has painted a target on few peoples backs that have gone out of their way to try and humiliate him by consensus. Is this the opening he has been looking for to finally pull the trigger?
Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said “There is nothing here that undermines the EPA’s way forward.”
Guess I could be wrong I am pretty sure that says “Move along nothing here to see.”
Those that build little empires within government or other such controlling/regulatory bodies under the auspices of government, need to be reminded – constantly – that they are PUBLIC servants and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when they are shown to FAIL the public. There is no excuse – when a doctor behaves badly, they are struck off – these people should lose their jobs and pensions, etc, etc – for any proven disingenious behaviour. It might make them think twice before putting themselves and their dictatorial tendencies first!
I couldn’t help but notice at least half a dozen attempts to bolster the “science” in the NYT article. Total spin job from the NYT on this one.
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. The fat lady in this is the UNFCCC. See the story here:
U.N. Seeks to Raise ‘Level of Ambition’ in World Climate Regulations
The 2009 Copenhagen climate summit may have failed, but its objectives, and the United Nations’ determination to realize them, are very much alive.
Global airline carbon taxes, taxes on shipping, sweeping changes in land use, and an even bigger squeeze on world-wide greenhouse emissions—including tougher U.S. emissions limits and enforcement —have been under intense discussion at a series of discreet international “workshop” meetings fostered by the U.N. in the past six months.
The gatherings aim at raising the stakes in the “climate change” agenda, while keeping new actions as much as possible under the cloak of purely domestic activities for each nation involved.
Documents summarizing the workshop proceedings will be presented to yet another U.N. gathering in Panama starting October 1, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The summary documents make clear that the governments of many Western developed countries—including the U.S.— are still hoping to increase the “level of ambition” of commitments they made in the wake of the failed Copenhagen climate summit to undertake drastic reductions in their carbon dioxide emissions to combat “climate change,” even without a global treaty to carve them in stone.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/30/un-seeks-to-raise-stakes-in-world-climate-regulations/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZThMqBnU
The only thing that shocks me about this affair is that Carlin was vindicated!
Minor word usage point: “quashed”, rather than “squashed”, is the more accurate word when used in a phrase meaning “suppressing” a report, document, or such. For example, lawyers use the term in phrases like: “He sought to quash the subpoena..”
Sorry to be tedious, just a pet peeve of mine. Quash this, if you please.
KW
Its interesting — the EPA has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting people for rules violations. For example, the EPA filed *criminal* charges (yes, criminal charges) against San Diego Gas and Electric Company for it’s alleged failure to follow rules governing the removal of asbestos:
Yet here we have a case where the EPA failed to follow federal regulations, resulting in a potential for massive damage to the economy, and the OIG response is to recommend that the EPA “revise its Peer Review Handbook”?? When a private citizen unintentionally runs afoul of the complex EPA rules they are prosecuted as criminals whereas when the EPA violates the law they are told to update their manuals??
Unfortunately, I agree with Tom (2:39pm). They are doing everything possible to stiffle debate and keep this out of the news and will then ram it through parliament in mid-October and treat it like a fait accompli. If you think otherwise then you’re dreaming. My dream was that Gillard might be tossed out before then it this is looking less and less likely. Labor will happily let her go her merry way and then try to blame her for all the disasters wreaked. She keeps talking about the national interest but she doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the concept. Its all about personal power and WINNING.
As for Alan Carlin, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for him. As so many others, he’s been attacked and has suffered for simply telling the truth. That seems to be the greatest crime at the moment. Just look at Andrew Bolt.
Reflecting on Skeptical Science’s misuse of language, I mused, once again, how nice it would be to have a wiki that deconstructs each of SkeSci’s unmerited debunks of climate skeptics’ issues.
But here’s a smaller project that might be even better able to help the re-establishment of integrity. How nice it would be to have our own “Not-an-IPCC-rogue gallery”, matching each of SkeSci’s named individuals and perhaps extending to RealClimate “rogues gallery” etc. Why was Don Easterbrook tarred? Because of the damning evidence of his ice core record. Why were Soon and Baliunas tarred? Because of the damning evidence of their paper – which still needs rehabilitating here IMHO. Why is Monckton tarred? Because of the damning evidence of his use of IPCC maths against itself. Why was Tim Ball’s bio deleted from Wikipedia? Because of the damning evidence of his career. It would be such a nice piece of work, if Alan Carlin and lots more who have paid the price, could have accessible biographies, all together, focussing particularly on why they were tarred – what warmists wanted to suppress – and what their crucial evidence actually says.
Project, anyone?
Lisa Jackson in unmoved by the IG report. That is not a surprise, nor should it be based on her actions over the last 20 years in support of the AGW crusade.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats will lose the White House in 2012. If that indeed comes to pass then I have a bit of advice to give the new management.
Remove the cancer that allowed AGW to become the monster it is today within the US government. Bush did not shake up the government science technocracy or the federal science funding bureaucracy when he took over after Clinton in 2001. Gore had spent eight years replacing high and mid level scientists and bureaucrats within the government and NAS with AGW believers. These folks then spent the next eight years undermining Bush’s policies. This is also how Obama was able to get a running start beginning in 2009.
I will be the first to mention Lisa Jackson. She has to go. She accepted work that was not up to standards, and clearly not up to standards as one of her employees, Alan Carlin, had clearly reported, and used it to justify one of the most far-reaching and expensive regulatory regimes in the history of the USA. Senator Inhofe, call for her resignation please. Call for an investigation of the entire matter, please. Have Alan Carlin as your first witness.