Related story:
Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management
by Richard Morrison, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.
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.
Read the censored report here:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 1Y0-A17 questions and 642-456 lab tutorials to practice and pass 1Y0-A08 certification exam on first try.
Do you know of any attorneys who would be willing to file an injunction against the EPA?
Thanks for getting the link to the draft report posted. It is interesting that the author was advocating caution with regard to the use of IPCC material as the EPA could be blamed for decisions based on science they did not independantly check. It seems that the author was actually trying to act in the best interests of his employer and the American taxpayer. I have also noted some discussion over at CA as to if IPCC material should be included in EPA decisions if it has not been formaly submited, and also if AR4 meets the requirments for submissions due to the nature of the IPCC.
Anthony, I am not LOL, I am ROTFLMAO
Leon Brozyna (20:22:16) :
And when will the mainstream media (ABCNNBCBS or even Drudge) start reporting on this? Let me guess – after supoenas are served.
Indeed Leon. When?
The EPA is correct: When it all goes bad or just plain doesn’t happen they will be thrown under the bus.
Just now getting into the report, lots to read, but I can see they have a good handle on all the things that are known & unknown.
I’ll make sure my Congressman knows the draft has been released.
Reading the report:
The “Executive Summary” dismisses the lowly EPA author to servitude, if not unemployment.
woodNfish (20:12:55) :
From my experience, it’s the rank & file that get the major portion of the blame. Lessers in management too.
Who knew what when and why weren’t we told staged outrage hearings are a poor substitue for a stitch in time. Might make the audience feel better, but it won’t undo the damage to the free world as economy & power is ceded to tyrants.
For those who think CarbonGate is Orwellian, here’s CEI’s 80-second take on that metaphor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0
And by coincidence, this month is the 60th anniversary of the publication of that classic.
REPLY: Welcome Sam, and thank you sincerely for your efforts. – Anthony
This as far as I can tell, has been circulating about 2 days. It is showing up on some other sites. Wonder if some people will get fired at the EPA for being associated with info that doesn’t fit the mission?
It seems posts are up a lot on this site.
Is James Hansen out of jail or will they let him read the paper there? Did he really think he would share a cell with daryl Hannah and do peer review with her?
Does WikiLeaks like to file away these documents also?
The EPA ignored their scientists over water fluoridation safety issues also. The scientists went on strike against their agency over that and the unjust firing of the top critic. Weather is not the only science that is being manipulated by BOTH sides of the aisle. Nonetheless, this may be a planned change in tactics…
I’ve sent this and the Examiner Link to everyone I could think of who might get it past the Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett fluff before the Thermageddon vote. And had my small band of miscreants do the same.
Great Job getting this out.
And a nice long section dealing with Joe D’Aleo’s PDO/AMO correlation, also on this site.
Is this thing really from inside the EPA? I mean, it’s too good to be true. The guy writes with a bluntness unlike any bureaucrat I ever came across. C’mon, fellas. Somebody’s got to be pulling our legs on this one.
While I understand the report is a draft, I do have some concerns. There seems to be a lot of cut and paste going on, and maybe too many of the references were to websites, blogs or newspaper articles. I feel Alan’s supervisor may have had a valid point in this area, though it appears this may have only been for the purposes of delaying submission. Interestingly WUWT does get quite a few mentions. However as the purpose of the report appears to have been to encourage the EPA to independantly verify the science, a more complete set of references should not really be nessesary. I hope to read the final version soon.
Fluoridation, just like black helicopters, has become a punch-line for many jokes in today’s society.
DEA did have black helicopters – oops!
Compare America before and after the introduction of Flouridation. Is there a difference?
Sometimes, us “old farts” remember when science was the aquisition of raw data, and the quest to understand what that data was teaching us.
Today, our leading scientists no longer understand the difference between computer generated models, and actual reality.
Anthony,
Congratulations on your efforts to expose the AGW fraud.
Interesting, based on my learnings from this site, the theme I used in my comments to the EPA are the same as those in the report:
“The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.”
Thanks for your fruitful efforts. Keep up the good work.
What’s kind of horrifying is that even our more casual readers are at the least highly familiar with ALL of the points in this paper. We either agree, disagree, or are unsure. Our knowledge varies on each point. But, DANG, we at least we KNOW about them!
The fact that the EPA seems baffled about such things, caught flatfooted, speaks to a sort of monumental, colossal, nay, magnificent ignorance and incompetence.
I expect this sort of thing from Congressmen. They at least have the excuse that they have other things to do. They rely on expert opinion to reach reasonable decisions regarding such matters. But, holy canole, the EPA — supposedly — ARE the experts! And they reveal themselves to be . . . boobs! Flatheads! Not unlike an English professor who has never heard of Shakespeare.
I used to work for the EPA about 10 years ago (before sensibly changing careers). I worked for a state agency, not the feds – but I can tell you, there is practically no science behind the rules – at least in air. Some of the stuff we were forced to regulate – storage tanks, unpaved parking lots (yep – miniscule amounts of dust from companies, but no regulation of farm fields -and the permits for it are about 20 pages long!!), etc… bordered on insanity. Pollutant emission limits were applied to sources that couldn’t be measured, and regulations were applied to VOC’s from surface coatings that had absolutely no basis in reality. I saw one two many companies hampered by an out of date California Rule 66 adaptation that I literally could not perform my duties anymore (thus the career change). One company in particular (a large company) was almost forced to shutdown because they were unable to compete – the rules prevented them from installing additional production lines!!!!
Oh sure, there are some bad actors out there – who do actually cause pollution problems (asphalt plants are notorious), but the vast majority are good companies that get caught up in an absurdly expensive regulatory mess that does nothing to prevent pollution. Cap n’ Trade is not the first piece of nonsense – Title V is. This largely unknown rule forced companies to pay for their emissions (measured or otherwise). These costs have been passed on to you since the late 90’s.
There were a couple of decent rules too, but they were small in comparison.
I only had to deal with US EPA a couple of times, but I recall the Steel Industry ‘Expert’ at US EPA Region 5 at the time, had been to one steel plant in his career. That should tell you something.
Leon Brozyna (20:22:16) :
I wouldn’t think that about Drudge. He will investigate it and report it if it has real teeth. You can send the link of this thread, with a headline, to his News Tips box. If enough people make him aware we will see it on his front page!!
http://www.drudgereport.com/
I’m reading on the cb (cumulo-nimus).
Interesting. I’ll pay much more attention to thunderheads from now on.
This is a no lose deal for the EPA. If the initiative fails, who’s going to get more budget items for further study? If the initiative advances, who’s going to be administering whatever it is that gets set up to regulate emissions? I see it as kind of a battle between experts who would always like more time to study things and the elected who want credit for doing something about greenhouse gases. The best thing that could happen would be a big June frost somewhere that would just shut everyone up about this global warming nonsense.
Compare America before and after the introduction of Flouridation. Is there a difference?
Better teeth.
This, too, shall pass away, unnoticed because it will remain unreported. On the other hand –
“The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, . . .”
– Internal EPA email, March 17th, 2009
Mr McGartland must have gotten the word from somewhere that Obama’s administration had already decided the outcome three months before the close of the comment period. An electronic record of emails and other communications to Mr McGartland from his higher-ups must exist, and that record would prove what, a conspiracy?, a subversion of legal requirements in rules promulgation?
Those emails we have seen may be only the tip (freeboard?) of the iceberg in this story. FOIA anyone?
“Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute (20:43:25) :”
Excellent video Sam! Excellent!