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The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A lot of people out there despise the CEI . I think they do great work , and have told them so – withdonations .
[snip]
Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt had better think it through, too. When they post hate banter and threats against others from dhogaza, Romm and Schmidt become culpable in any real violence that might take place in the future. They become inciters.
And should violence against climate realists happen, they open themselves up for king-sized lawsuits. The paltry excuses Romm offered after his “strangulation” posting will not hold up in court. High-powered attys representing grieving widows will make mincemeat of, “I was only making a prediction.”
So a word to the wise: don’t step into the menacing trap. If you make threats, you will be punished, even if it’s not your hand that throws the actual bomb.
Did the suppression begin even prior to the current administration? The previous one was luke warm (pun semi intended) regarding rightful skepticism of “killer AGW” – even at the very top, there was a conflicted notion that AGW is “real” and “serious.”
It seems your thread has caught Gavin’s attention enough for him to write “Bubkes.”
I responded as shown below, but the piece “under review” and is unlikely to surface there.
In “Bubkes” the refutation appears to be largely repeating CEI’s criticisms, as if that is enough, coupled with mention of the author’s credentials. Perhaps Professor Happer’s credentials are more acceptable? They do appear to be closer to the subject matter than, say, astronomy.
Gavin Schmidt is quoted to have stated “Climate research should be as open and transparent as possible” so in the interest of open debate, may I suggest your readers look at “Global Warming and Climate Change in Perspective: Truths and Myths About Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models.” by William Happer (April 20, 2009)
Ref: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5441
REPLY: Its funny. Gavin writes “bupkes” about the report, so if it were so little impact, why would the EPA bother to exclude it. If there was nothing to be concerned about, why not include it in the final report to show how the EPA was thorough? Gavin just did us all a great service. – Anthony
I think WUWT should issue a rebuttal to the criticisms against that draft report on RC. Otherwie, they could smply write it off as bad science and it will gain no traction.
You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Time has just about run-out for the AGW scare, as more and more ordinary people are realising that AGW theory has been well and truly falsified.
Wonder what will be the next ‘hoax scare’ to hit us? Be interesting to see – they have to have one to keep the population under control and continuing to pay ever higher taxes.
evanmjones (2l:32:19)
Your comments on the science of fluoride are exactly why so many people are so easily mislead by the AGW arguments. Myths are created by public relations experts and then the general public parrots them as if they are facts. Here’s some info. Fluoride is a toxic waste substance. For many years its only approved use was as an insecticide and a rat poison. It is more toxic than lead and only slightly less than arsenic. The USA is around 65% fluoridated. Over 84% of US children , 96% of adults and 99.5% of over-65 have experienced tooth decay. US CDC figures. “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.” Robert Carton PhD, former US Environmental Protection Agency scientist. Go to fluoridealert.org for the real science, if you are unconvinced engage Paul Connett, PhD. in debate after reading his “Fluoride: A Statement of Concern”. He is to fluoride as Anthony is to climate change.
Many here complain about the lack of scientific knowledge of the masses, but it’s prevalent among scientists themselves.
All teeth improved when nutrition improved with or without the addition of fluoride. …And now back to CO2.
Anyone Wikki and Willing to enter Robert Woods CARBONGATE?
WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, today asked Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Oversight Committee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to begin an investigation on the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in developing its endangerment finding.
The endangerment finding, if formalized by a rule, would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, something U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., once called “a glorious mess.”
“It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote. “The attached EPA emails raise serious questions about the process for developing the proposed endangerment finding, whether analysis or information was suppressed because it did not support the administration and/or administrator’s proposed finding, and/or whether there is a fear within the agency that there will be negative consequences for offices that offer views critical of the prevailing views of the administrator and the administration.”
This is excellent…. It will be interesting to watch this play out. I feel as this is the final stretch….. The whole ball of string is rolling back down the hill on them, unravelling as it goes…..
But I won’t be entirely happy until the carcass of the AGW Hypothesis has a wooden stake through it’s black heart, a silver bullet in it’s corrupted body and lies shrivelling, in the cold harsh light of critical scrutiny;-)
Neo (09:25:53) :
“It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote.
Result!
Amazing…. from the floor today…
10:22am: Dem Rep. Quigley preaches cult of global warming science. Says there are no contrary studies.
So what’s the punch line?
Is someone going to be held accountable for ignoring science? Or will they just get a proverbial slap on the wrist for being bad?
At least give them a government dunce cap!
Funny, Gavin over at RC dismisses Alan Carlin because “[H]e isn’t a climate scientist”
I hope he also makes the same statement about his idol James Hansen since he is also not a climate scientist.
Ok this report is great, even though it’s just a draft (I imagine it’s going to stay a draft too!). It pretty much sums up the current state of play. Apart from the odd old media personality (Chrisopher Booker for example), I don’t imagine this getting much air time. What a shame!
Reagarding dhogaza – are we ruffling some feathers?
Neo (09:25:53) :
Got any links?
tj (09:06:26) When my son was born in 1978, we used well water. Concerned about not having flourine in the water, we gave him flouride tablets for the first year. He probably received a higher dose than that acquired via tap water, and never has had a cavity. Most every substance has a toxicity level, but we need trace amounts of many things that are ‘toxic’ in larger doses. Declaring something ‘toxic’ isn’t a valid argument against it, just like CO2.
Probably unlikely that either Waxman or Stupak are interested in launching an investigation . Unless they come under fire for not doing so . Turn up the heat .
TOm it appears you are doing a part II to your article. I would suggest asking the EPA if the IPCC reports have been submitted for review, have they been reviewed by EPA staff, and whether other procedures for using outside scientific material are being followed.
Here’s RealClimate’s discussion of the report.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691
Neither is Gavin Schmidt.
FWIW, on Fox Business Channel the program hosted by Stuart Varney had an AGW-is-bunk physicist on the show (sorry, I didn’t catch his name). Varney asked “hasn’t the temperature been flat the last few years” and his guest said “it was down just a little”. He also solicited email responses… I’d suggest giving him some feedback.
varney@foxbusiness.com
The physicist agreed that we’d had warming, but declared that it was probably natural. A little feedback about the “quality” of the measured warming, the cherry pick interval, and the tendency to go down lately, plus waving “Carbongate” as a topic might be well placed. We have a “mass media” outlet that is willing to listen…
“”” Robert Wood (20:12:04) :
Hell, I just invented the term “Carbongate” in a previous thread only minutes ago. …Darn, those electro-telecommunication thingies just run too fast…:-)
REPLY: And a fine term it is. – Anthony “””
Tell me Robert; you’re a Latin Scholar; right ? Is this new term from the same Latin root as ” car-wa-bonga “.
Sadly I don’t hold out a lot of hope that the CEI release be able to upset the train wreck that is about to go down in the House of Representatives. (but I do heartily endorse their releasing the information.
American voters must be waking up to the horrors of what really was the mystery inside of Pandora’s Box; and I fear we will wish we had never known.
George
Just listened to some of the debate on c-span. Plenty of rhetoric about jobs on both sides, but nothing querying the science so far.