The EPA apparently doesn’t care about any negative comment of their GHG Endangerment findings, even internally, so the exercise in Democracy we did yesterday apparently was for naught.
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
– Internal EPA email, March 17th, 2009
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has caught EPA administration red-handed in concealment of internal dissent as well as apparently proceeding with plans in advance.
From this PDF circulated today by CEI, here are the points:
EI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.
CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.
The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:
1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;
2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in
the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);
3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added);
4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating “ I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
Mr. McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA’s proposed position. This raises several major issues.
A. Incompleteness of the Rulemaking Record: The end result of withholding Mr. Carlin’s study was to taint the Endangerment Proceeding by denying the public access to important agency information. Court rulings have made it abundantly clear that a rulemaking record should include both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976).
B. Prejudgment of the Outcome of the Endangerment Proceeding: The emails also suggest that EPA has prejudged the outcome of this proceeding, to the point where it arguably cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate the record before it. Courts have recognized “the danger that an agency, having reached a particular result, may become so committed to that result as to resist engaging in any genuine reconsideration of the issues.” Food Marketing Institute v. ICC, 587 F.2d 1285, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
C. Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty: Finally, the emails suggest that EPA’s extensive pronouncements about transparency and scientific honesty may just be rhetoric. Shortly before assuming office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared: “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Jan. 23, 2009, link. See also Administrator Jackson’s April 23 Memo to EPA Employees, “Transparency in EPA’s Operations”. These follow the President’s own January 21 memo to agency heads on “Transparency and Open Government”. And in an April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the President declared that, “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.
For these reasons, we submit that EPA should immediately make Mr. Carlin’s study public by entering it into the Endangerment docket, and that it should either extend or reopen the comment period in this proceeding to allow public responses to that study. It should do so, moreover, while publicly pledging that Mr. Carlin will suffer no adverse repercussions from agency personnel. Mr. Carlin is guilty of no wrongdoing, but the tenor of the emails described above suggests he may well have reason to fear reprisals.
Read the EPA internal emails, including photographs of the originals here.
Call your congressional representative. This is legally wrong and makes a mockery of the public comment process.
Tell them here: 202-224-3121.
wws (13:13:11) :
“hope n’ change, people. Hope ‘n change.”
As in, I hope you’ve got some change, because you will be needing it.
Hi all,
In regards to the article I published today, I’d like to add a few points. First, if you read any of my other articles, such as those on the report published last week, it should be obvious that I’m not exactly ready to be led by the nose. I linked to Anthony’s article here because I trust him and this site. I still do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did create an impression of Alan as a skeptic who could not get his opinion heard within the EPA. I’ve seen pretty convincing evidence that he not only got his opinion heard, he got some of it into the Endangerment report. It also became quickly evident that he is not a skeptic at all.
I contacted the EPA this morning and received an email response from them that seemed relevant–and open. I contacted the CEI and received nothing.
My article is not about the commenting process regarding the EPA’s finding of Endangerment. When I do write one about it, it will be as honest as I know how to make it. My article started off being about one man who couldn’t get heard within the agency. It ended up being about being played by the CEI.
I sincerely doubt if the EPA will cover itself with glory during the evaluation of everybody’s comments. But I have to say I think they did okay today. I don’t believe they shut Alan down. I’d like to know how the CEI got hold of that email exchange–they’re not the first people I would think of to send this kind of email, and it doesn’t sound like the organisation that would come first to Alan–he’s very committed to the activist side.
I’m a liberal Democrat who happens to lean towards the skeptic arguments regarding AGW. It will never be a completely comfortable fit for me amongst many of you. But I am trying to be an honest commentator on the facts. I’m a big boy and can handle criticism, but read some of what I’ve written first.
Reply: Tom, look at the post from anonymous five posts up. Hopefully it gives you some indications of other questions you might ask. I don’t think the poster will want to forward their identity to you, but I have also searched the net and have confirmed that person is in a role which gives him access to everything he has stipulated. And of course you are welcome here. ~ charles the moderator
Oh dear! There’s no winners in this sorry game, just a long train of potential losers. The initial, environmental victories, valiantly won by Josephine and Napoleon, that inspired us, have crumbled into an Orwellian nightmare.
Some environmentalists are more equal than others-The debate is over-Everyone agrees!
Pshaw, this is Fascism. Pure-Simple- and cynical.Forget the Honeyed principles, see past the appeal to our better natures that make us think we must join forces with the appealers to secure our futures. They have only their self-interests in mind.
Warmists and denialists alike- take a step back – count to ten and consider this. Are we so different? Hands up those- and forget our differences, for the moment, who believe that life will be better, if we ban discourse and debate.
The matters of detail we disagree with- yes that’s very clear- well, let’s worry about that later.
But, and this is critical for all our futures, if you believe in a democracy that honors and allows both support for dissension and freedom of expression – irrespective of your belief or otherwise, wrt AGW/ACC then call a halt to the methods employed by agents, funded by your cash.
God help us when the US elects a government with a 99% majority!
Just remember: THUGS are THUGS.
IT doesn’t really matter if they wield a batton, a rifle or a PEN.
THUGS are THUGS.
The EPA, because of their power, are THUGS.
And if anyone doesn’t understand what a THUG is, look up Thugge
for example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee#Religion_and_Thuggee
And remember, they were brutal killers.
Joe
anonymous (17:51:36) :
Thank you for you candor and for your reference to retaliation.
Its an important reminder that those in government service who don’t follow the party line on climate “science” risk a lot to speak out.
This needs to be broadcast widely.
Just what did everybody think “Yes We Can” actually meant?
Oh you poor naive babies.
Sorry for the snark. Sometimes there’s nothing else (that’s legal) left to do.
Re: Tom Fuller (18:08:13) :
I respect Tom’s willingness to listen to both sides in this matter. He simply is not privy to the facts. Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple. The arguments were ignored for lack of expertise in climate science. Indeed, when an investigation was done to determine how many full time equivalents (bureaucratise for “people”) EPA has with actual first hand knowledge on how to use the kind of GCMs upon which the IPCC relied, the answer was half a person (a person half time). I’m not sure, but I don’t think that person was actually on the work group. I don’t recall seeing his name on it, in any case.
Tom, there are going to be a lot of questions about this transaction. I am not permitted to give details, but I expect Congressional inquiries will force most of the facts out. If they don’t, then I don’t really know what to say.
I’m prepared to go on background on this if you are serious about finding out the facts.
Reply: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.
Re: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.
Only after Tom publically promises anonymity.
Reply: Ok ~ ctm
This surprises me about as much as the sun coming up tomorrow.
Folks, from an island in the Pacific, I can see at least a couple of people who may just be in need of a Fighting Fund real soon. After all, a 66% budget cut and a successful EPA process are most easily simultaneously achieved by firing the whistle-blowers (publicly regretfully, natch).
“…the EPA cannot avoid its own responsibility to both collect its own scientific record and make its own independent judgments as to the weight of that record. In other words, the conclusions the IPCC drew from its own review of the scientific literature is not a factaal basis from which the EPA can support an endangerment finding.”
Yes, I tried to make that clear to the EPA during the previous round of comments, specifically focusing on the fact that Global Warming has not yet been scientifically proven to be a net disease by anyone, nor has the ipcc or anyone else shown that the alleged cure to the alleged disease would not be worse than the alleged disease, except for the “rubber meets the road” assessments and actions of India and China which do judge that the “cure” will certainly be worse than the “disease”.
I tried to emphasize that its the EPA’s responsibility to make these as yet undone assessments itself for U.S. citizens, necessarily involving a complete examination of the benefits of Global warming and the detriments of reversing fossil fuel use, and that “People will remember”.
Not that the EPA is going to listen to me, but based upon their own hallowed propaganda mechanisms maybe something will seep in anyway, at least if they actually do read the comments.
Anonymous, thank you for putting the truth above your personal convenience. Incompetent bureaucrats must learn that bluster and bullying may seem to work in the short term, but they will be exposed.
Exposing incompetence and waste in Government is what we elect politicians for, but they have become part of the problem. Will the internet take up the slack?
calling Congress is not going to do any good-see my experience in the comments on “Pushing back Waxman-Markly”. The only thing that is going to do any good is to bring legal action for their violation of the law.
Im not from the states, and have a limited knowledge of the political workings of youre country… but this certainly is a lil reminiscent of that Simpsons movie. As Reiner Wolfcastle so eloquently put it… “Im here to lead! Not to read!” 😉
“Tom Fuller (18:08:13) :
Hi all,
In regards to the article I published today, I’d like to add a few points. First, if you read any of my other articles, such as those on the report published last week, it should be obvious that I’m not exactly ready to be led by the nose.”
I agree. I’ve read a couple of your articles and found them to be pretty objective, which is a rarity on both sides of the debate on global warming. Having said that, I’m not sure that I would have been as accepting of the EPA response to this issue, which you posted in your article. If you parse through it carefully, they never state that the particular paper that was the subject of the e-mails in the CEI submission was given to the working group doing the endangerment files. In fact, one e-mail itself flatly says that it wasn’t. Stating that he was allowed to attend seminars or that his “general views” were allowed to be heard inside and outside the agency misses the point. He wanted to submit a document to be entered into the agency factual record, after which not only would that document be available to the public for comment, but also be a part of the record by which a court could ultimately review the EPA’s decision. As plainly evidenced by an e-mail, his supervisor sat on the document until after the deadline, the next day saying that he didn’t submit it because the EPA and the Administration had already decided on going forward with an endangerment finding, and strongly implying that the decision to not forward the document was made because it would run counter to that decision. It’s that last e-mail that I have a very hard time rationalizing away.
I believe anonymous, but it can only be a belief for now, not proof. Understandably, anonymous’ own self-preservation means that only an official inquiry will disclose what he knows. Until that time, his comments are unsupportable and would be summarily dismissed as rumormongering.
Mr. Watts, don’t lose his co-ordinates. Years down the road there’ll be an entire book chapter surrounding the EPA’s shenanigans and it’s role in the current catastrophic AGW industry. I look forward to reading it.
Folks,
We really need to pay attention here. We will find no greater expert concerning climate change than Dr. McGartland. He is after all a PhD; it doesn’t matter that it’s in economics. It’s a PhD, so it counts.
Don’t take my word, check out his bio: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/staff.nsf/c4ce41ae8cfb864b85256ede00683325/9dc39271486dc42f85256b8400765d9b!OpenDocument
REPLY: PhD’s counts huh? Let me introduce you to another PhD., Dr. John A. Davison. I suggest you order a pizza. – Anthony
Well, maybe some of those PhDs in climatology could have used, say, a BA in history (or literature) before they “got rid of” the Medieval Warm Period.
An interdisciplinary approach is necessary.
Unfortunately in a lot cases those sheepskins are the provenance of sheep.
I am sorry. I object to the posts here that imply if one is not a PhD in climate science, one cannot speak seriusly on the subject.
I am an engineer who has studied physics and mathematics and logic. I understand the principals of reasoning.
I am completely capable of passing comment on “global warming science”. To suggest otherwise is the approach of a charlatan.
The Obama Administration’s World Transparency Tour continues…with transparency having the clarity of a pyroclastic flow.
Francis, let me be more specific:
If you really believe that only the sanctified “Those With A PHd in Climate Scienece” can prognosticate on global warming. then Hansen is a zero, along with most others.
Who is actually liscensed, by your method, to make pronouncements on global warming? Pielke peut-etre??
Between governmental coverups, omissions, arrests, and ignorance, it seems we have arrived at more of a political tipping point than a climatological tipping point eh?
Hi all,
Anonymous, if you do agree to speak with me, I promise I will keep your identity anonymous. That is without conditions.
Thanks for performing a public service.
Tom Fuller
San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner,
Examiner.com
Reply: IP addresses and unpublished email confirmed. I believe anonymous has retired for the evening, but I will forward information ~ ctm.
Anonymous, I would be very suspicious of Fuller’s avowal. It costs him/her nothing. You need a guartantee that costs hmi/her.
The only way that this can be solved, insofar as I understand, is to sue the EPA and obtain a check against the administrative branch from the judicial branch. You could hope that Congress passes something that would counteract it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.