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.
Robert Wood: I suggest you take up your argument with the alarmists. It is they who have overused the authority falacy to defend their belief. I (and I assume most of posters) are mocking them. Feeding them little bit of their own medicine does wonders to flush out the system.
The EPA are [snip] and they have been long before the global warming scam. I do not think they should have any role in the government. They are just another lobbiest group. The[snip] that I speak of was the banning of DDT for “political reasons” We know the political reasons. Far more people in Africa would die without it and they are, at the rate of 1 Million a year.
deadwood (17:34:48) : You are absolutely correct, although we need every Republican to vote against this insanity just in case there are cross-overs. The dream of America and the future freedom of the world is relying on this bill to be struck down. It is that important.
Next time you are asked to give to or support a candidate, insist they answer publicly about global warming. If they refuse or skate around the subject, don’t give a dime.
Robert, I suspect Francis was being ironic. At least that’s how I read it.
Cheers G
anonymous (17:51:36)
Thanks for the contributions – and bravery! I’ve looked at some of Mr Carlin’s publications and he appears to be a pretty impressive individual. I mentioned at the start of this post that a real can of worms had been opened up. The congressional hearings should be telling…
Can I make another other point about ‘expertise’ in ‘climate science’? There was no really such thing as ‘climate science’ until about 20 years ago and is 20 years really time enough to build up much expertise in anything? Especially since ‘climate science’ was labouring under the impression that it was ‘global warming’ for most of that time.
Another point. I’m a geologist and geology has been a real science for hundreds of years now. I have always said that the more I find out about anything scientific the more I realise how litte we really do know. Not so with ‘climate science’ apparently…; it’s all settled already.
Once again,
THE SCIENCE IS IN!
WE HAVE A CONSENSUS!
and
DON’T BOTHER US WITH THE FACTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT WE ONLY TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH US!
anonymous (17:51:36) :
Good on you!
WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :
“If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations.
I do not intend to leave my city, however.”
sorry, dude. this is global.
you can run, but you cain’t hide.
guess you can’t take a Texan outa Texas after all.
[snip, meant to be cute, but was actually racist ~ ctm]
WorldNetDaily has picked up on this event-
HERE’S YOUR TRANSPARENCY
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
EPA’s own research expert
‘shut up’ on climate change
Government analyst silenced
after he critiques CO2 findings
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031
“Francis (20:03:37) :
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”
What do you say to someone with a PhD in “climatology”? Big Mac, large fries please.
neill (22:23:47) :
WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :
“If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations.
I do not intend to leave my city, however.”
sorry, dude. this is global.
you can run, but you cain’t hide.
Unless you live in Russia, where they will increase CO2 emissions by burning cheap fossil fuels while collecting $Billons of Kyoto Carbon credits from foolish western nations. A No-Lose situation. REF: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awZsTffLILz0&refer=home
Also, China and India are definently putting economic growth ahead of cutting CO2, however both countries are happy for CO2 Credits as a Western Subsidy to pay for Hydro power schemes. REF-1: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2119 and REF-2: http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/jul/env-cdm.htm
Also Brazil is looking at ways to burn methane (emitting CO2) while collecting carbon credits from Western nations to do so. REF: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38070
So there are plenty of places to go…
People,
Some of you missed my sarcasm. Having a PhD in economics does NOT adequately allow one to opine on climatology, in my humble opinion of course. Too many “doctors” through their letters around with clarification as to their actual field of study or credentials. “Experts” who fail to specify their academic expertise are, I have found, best left ignored.
Reality mirrors fiction: It’s like Atlas Shrugged, but without Atlantis to escape to.
This is a sad thread. Sad for the open society and the promise of the american dream.
During the time of cold war, a friend of mine, a psychiatric social worker, accompanied her husband to a conference in Moscow. She told me that her impression was, from body laguage and expressions, that the city was full of paranoids. Except she realized that what was scaring those people was not imaginary, but a real threat of loosing a job or status.
When people reach the point that we are wary of revealing our thoughts in scientific matters because of political repercussions on our job security nobody should be proud .
A government agency not telling the truth? Well I never…
Government agencies exist to nurture and progress government agendas. There’s no other reason for their existence. Over here we call them Quangos – Quasi non-governmental organisations. Some people believe quangos are autonomous but they receive their funding from a central government that also has a say in who runs the outfit and how it operates so how can they be autonomous? The non-governmental part of the name is a cynical lie. No way is our control freak Prime Minister, nor his equally freakish predecessor, going to allow anything resembling independent thought to escape into the proletarian wilds. Think tanks running contrary to the party line (i.e. NOT paid for by government) are staffed by racists, extreme right-wingers, nutjobs and other sinister types etc.
This is standard operating procedure for any government on the make, particularly when they’ve discovered a new way to fleece and/or control the electorate. It’s nothing short of a gift to socialists who know how to manipulate a system like this. The UK New Labour government love quangos; they’ve allowed them to multiply like bacteria since 1997 . And then New Labour got creative with bogus, state sponsored charities lobbying for “change” that the government just happens to want. Amazing!
This eco-fascism is getting out of hand. I read somewhere that eventually we’ll be split into two basic groups: Greenies and the people who shoot Greenies.
Lock and load!
[REPLY – No inciting to violence, please, even in jest, by implication. Ad Argumentum is all the buckshot we need. ~ Evan]
Robert Wood (20:41:13) :
If Tom Fuller breaks his word about this then it will cost him pretty much every future anonymous source. Nobody would trust him with “off the record” comments, give him sneak previews of reports etc. So yes, breaking his word would cost him dearly.
“While he is certainly qualified to comment on things like costs vs benefits of regulating CO2, he has absolutely no qualifications to be commenting on the underlying science (which is what he appears to have done).”
This sort of comment really gets up my nose. Since when has Science been akin to a gnostic religion where secret knowledge is held by a coterie of high priests?
Science consists, among other things, of a body of knowledge that is accessible to all. One does not need to be an expert in the field of celestial mechanics to realise that solar eclipses can be calculated hundreds of years in advance with high precision. We know this because such predictions have been made in the past and confirmed by later events. This could be called a successsful track record.
Climate science has no such track record and the predictions of its high priests will be subject to possible falsification in fifty or one hundred years time. Until then a modicum of humility should be in order. Perhaps ensuring that data collection meets a reasonable standard would be an attainable goal?
I forwarded the link of this story to drudgereport. maybe they can get some traction with it.
I also take issue with the claim that one needs a PHD in cliimate science or GCM modelling experience to make a statement on climate change. It doesn’t take a tailor to see that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, it simply takes one person who can see the facts.
The facts are that there are no facts. There is simply no evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of warming, and the pattern of warming (with a significant dip in the 40s and 70s) shows that natural inter-decadal variability is as large or greater than CO2’s influence. Once you refer to the inter-century variability (with Vikings buried in Greenland permafrost and medieval mines being found under retreating glaciers), you cannot even say that the current warming is unprecedented. Scientists need to grow up and become engineers. The most important lesson is to learn what you don’t know, and you tend to learn what you don’t know a lot better when it those unknowns can kill people.
Francis
“Having a PhD in economics does NOT adequately allow one to opine on climatology, in my humble opinion of course.”
Even a MINOR in economics at MIT requires:
“14.30 Introduction to Statistical Method in Economics or
18.05 Introduction to Probability and Statistics”
For a PhD,
Carlin also has a BSc in Physics from CalTech
I would expect that combination of physics, mathematics, probability theory, and analysis of complex correlations would prepare Dr. Alan Carlin well to grasp the challenges of climate theory and problems with Global Warming Models. Add to that serious reviewing of the scientific literature published AFTER the IPCC’s report.
I would seriously examine his evaluations of climate issues – which are probably more credible than that of most of the programmers creating those programs and making grandiose pronouncements on the probability of anthropogenic warming!
Or would you like to demonstrate your expertise by taking the MIT General Examination in Economics tomorrow?
Joe Barton, Texas congressman (who I don’t always agree with) has picked up this story, according to Bloomberg News.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=av_k2IrzSU5g
We should rethink about this article
WestHoustonGeo (16:36:38) :
If this idiocy continues, it is my intention to work outside the US in order to escape the onerous taxes and industry-choking regulations. I do not intend to leave my city, however.
Mexico won’t help you too much… Here our president is proud for being the first developing country on implementing “regulatory actions against climate change”, which means… Taxes and more taxes on breathing… They said it yesterday.
Once again I see that Flanagan, Joel, etc. are strangely quiet. When are these guys going to figure out that if you have the FACTs on your side there is no need to suppress anything. Only liars feel the need to hide the truth. Wake up guys.
As for needing a PHD … How hard is it to view temperature (air and ocean) and CO2 graphs for the last few years and see one going up and the others going down. That should make even the smartest PHD take notice and create doubts in any hypothesis that links the two as cause and effect. That is the application of simple logic which applies to all fields of science.
Mr. Fuller:
Thank you very very much for your correspondence. I am glad you are willing to dip a toe over here to further investigate this story. A large majority of journalists would have dropped the matter as soon as the EPA responded, and we have seen many reporters simply dismiss anything that has developed as a result of the work of Anthony’s or Steve McIntyre’s work. I too am suspicious that CEI didn’t respond in a timely fashion. It wouldn’t be the first time an advocacy group on either side of the AGW issue has exaggerated to try and create a mountain out of a mole hill. Regardless, this story is young. Let’s see how the worm turns.
Again, thanks for stopping by and keeping an open mind on these matters.
Mike Alexander aka Sonicfrog.