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The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments.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.
Belated response to Mr Lynn (08:28:08):
In regard to CEI’s “Al Gore 1984” video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0, Mr. Lynn asks whether we requested permission from Apple Computer before we did a makeover of its ad. The answer is no–we concluded that what we were doing was fair use. The two main reasons for this are 1) Apple apparently never tried to stop an anti-Hillary remake of its ad when she was running against Obama; and 2) the fact that Al Gore serves on Apple’s Board of Directors makes our ad a parody–which is strongly protected by the fair use doctrine.
By the way, for you South Park fans, watch the t-shirt of the heroine in our video–you may see the dreaded ManBearPig!
Dave Middleton says:
First of all, Gavin does not dismiss Carlin because he isn’t a climate scientist. What he says is this:
And, then he goes on to highlight some of the problems in their analysis (although he doesn’t even mention some of the worst like references to Beck and showing graphs from ICECAP as if they represent a legitimate source).
Second of all, Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen have both published extensively in the top peer-reviewed journals in the field of climate science (Gavin’s publications since 1996 are here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html ). Ergo, they are climate scientists by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that their PhDs were not actually in “climate science” but rather in allied fields (Hansen’s being in physics or astrophysics and Gavin’s being in math or applied math, I believe) does not mean that they are not climate scientists.
Hi,
We have just added your latest post “Global Warming Study Censored by EPA ” to our Directory of Environment . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.
Warm Regards
greenatmos.com Team
http://www.greenatmos.com
Might be worth thinking about that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://cei.org/) has a pretty clear political POV that they adhere too. Not too far from the Church insisting that the Sun rotated around the earth those many years ago (they had all kinds of studies and experts by the way. Many of which would fit in well here).
Just consider the source of the information. Why they want to advance this particular agenda. Then, take off the crazy-hate hats lined with tinfoil and move forward by looking for truth and scientific study of the issues. When I hear people going so over the top, it does NOT advance your POV. My guess would be the truth is in the middle somewhere. That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do. That’s understood. Ain’t evil, it’s just life. So be a bit more cautious when hearing ‘science’ produced by and from their shills. I clearly remember a lot of science produced by the tobacco industry that showed how nicotine was hardly addictive, and smoking wasn’t that bad for you. Really. (Remember those great ads with the likes of Ronald Reagan in the 50’s talking about how good smoking tasted?) Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.
The CIE isn’t at issue here. The EPA, as a public institution, is. The question is merely whether or not the charges are true. And they clearly are.
If you don’t like the CIE, go with the Examiner. Or the New York Times, for that matter.
Joel Shore (20:09:02) :
Joel, there are occassions you make good points, but man, don’t yousometimes get tired of torturing the English Language? Dr. Schmidt is quite capable, sometimes, of using subtle sarcasm in demeaning his inferiors.
anubisxiii (15:29:19) :
“I hope Tom Fuller is prepared for the drubbing . . . ”
Ain’t happening, which I take as a hopeful sign of the times. Just read his latest commentary, and the only warm-mongers to drop by were a pitiful pair of the usual – Bore-us, who couldn’t parse a point to save his life but is always good for a ris, and Chris Colouse, which, if ever an original thought strayed into his head, would quickly die of lonliness.
Joel Shore (20:09:02)
Gavin didn’t get the point, and you didn’t get that he didn’t get the point. No further comment, except that maybe we need a new term in the lexicon – something like Pseudo-Scientists With Credentials. Not very snappy; have to work on it. Hansen of course long ago abandoned any pretense to the rule of evidence, falsifiability, and all that other tedious science stuff; but then he’s in a class by himself (to put it delicately).
mfearing (22:52:26) :
Great idea – conservation of spit and anger; only so much to go around and Entropy lurks. And while you’re at it, how about dispensing with the drive-by smears – a tactic so beloved of the eco-lobby and certain Pseudo-Scientists With Credentials, say, Mike Mann (re: his latest hissy fit when Steve McIntyre had the unmitigated cheek to shred his & Steig’s fluff piece about Antarctic warming, and, by the by, expose Gavin’s plagiarism).
What’s that you say? You have solid evidence that CEI is funded by the Evil Energy Cartel; is their back-pocket shill? By all means, let’s see it.
BTW, another hopeful sign of the times: Paul Sheehan, the George Moonbat/Ross Gelbspan of Australia, has just done a 179-degree about-face, in the face of Ian Plimer’s damning indictment of the Climate Change Cartel (“Heaven and Earth” – buy it today). The AGW ship is foundering and the smart rats are clambering for the life boats.
1. That Gore is on Apple’s board speaks to his technical acumen, contrary to all the parodies. Of course, for pure humor, we never let facts get in the way.
2. That this was a parody speaks also to the fact that it is humor, and not fact. Never let facts get in the way.
3. That CEI uses grating and denigrating parody speaks to the lack of technical acumen and lack of facts in the rant. Were CEI a serious organization with facts, such a parody wouldn’t be part of the public release mission. When was the last time you saw such a thing being done by any serious science organization?
Never forget that CEI is first and foremost a public relations operation with a bias against environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, and non-poison methods of fighting malaria, to pick three.
Has CEI ever championed a noble cause, or any cause without money?
“Never forget that CEI is first and foremost a public relations operation with a bias against environmental protection, tobacco health warnings, and non-poison methods of fighting malaria, to pick three.
Has CEI ever championed a noble cause, or any cause without money?”
‘With a bias against well-meaning but incompetent legislation supported by ‘noble’ morons who are incapable of letting observation or rational thought get in the way of their Pollyanna dreams’ seems to be what you meant ??
Derek (15:25:57) :
re tallbloke comment above regarding John Boehner,
I have never used the C-span service before, does it usually break up as much. ?
That said, I think he may well have turned the “debate”.
Whatever the outcome I look forward to the future reports of his speech,
it appears to be a turning point regarding AGW / consensus “tactics” and methods.
I wonder if this is the American version of the “politicians expenses” in the UK,
ie something so absolutely unjustifiable that the 3.09am “amendent” will open many peoples eyes to what has been happening for long
Alas the MP’s expenses scandal will change very little apart from reducing the turnout at elections. People in the UK are so tired of the cycical way politics is done they are stupified by the media into doing nothing to kick the backsides of the self indulgent political class. they play the numbers game, and will take from all, and return just enough to their constituency to ensure continued support.
Use July the fourth to rally opposition. Claim the ground of the founding fathers. they knew the dangers of big government, and we ignore their warnings at our peril.
mfearing (22:52:26) :
Might be worth thinking about that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://cei.org/) has a pretty clear political POV that they adhere too. Not too far from the Church insisting that the Sun rotated around the earth those many years ago (they had all kinds of studies and experts by the way. Many of which would fit in well here).
I think the analogy fits perfectly with the AGW crowd : I have made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts.
Just consider the source of the information. Why they want to advance this particular agenda.
Well and good, if one looks also to why the AGW crowd wants to advance its agenda. Follow the money takes me literally to the billion spent in grants to prove AGW.
Then, take off the crazy-hate hats lined with tinfoil and move forward by looking for truth and scientific study of the issues. When I hear people going so over the top, it does NOT advance your POV. My guess would be the truth is in the middle somewhere. That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do. That’s understood. Ain’t evil, it’s just life. So be a bit more cautious when hearing ’science’ produced by and from their shills.
I do not see you wary of the science produced of the AGW shills, the establishment after all that is feeding from billions in the public trough. I have not seen more than a few millions given by the “shills” of oil, and that in a few grants and in supporting some institutes. Millions versus Billions. Worth a thought.
I clearly remember a lot of science produced by the tobacco industry that showed how nicotine was hardly addictive, and smoking wasn’t that bad for you. Really. (Remember those great ads with the likes of Ronald Reagan in the 50’s talking about how good smoking tasted?)
But, but all the billboards and advertisements come from the AGW camp. The others do not have enough money to produce movies etc.
Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.
Amen to this, except that in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.
Ed Darrell (03:01:27)
I really didn’t expect my comment on the Fair Use doctrine in copyright law, as it relates to our 80-second “Al Gore 1984” video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0, to set off a diatribe against CEI, but I guess your response is the sort of thing that makes life interesting. The video has been watched by thousands of people and, as far as I can tell, many have enjoyed.it. You did not, and I’m not about to criticize your sense of humor (or lack thereof). But do you really think that Al Gore’s serving on Apple’s board “speaks to his technical acumen”? Could it possibly speak, instead, to his political clout?
The point of our video is that political attempts to restrict CO2 emissions may well produce a “1984”-style society. The war on carbon footprints will become very similar to the never-ending war portrayed in Orwell’s novel, with constantly shifting battlefronts and alliances, all resulting in increasing regulation of our lives.
As for CEI itself, we don’t oppose tobacco health warnings; we oppose tobacco bans for adults. We’d like to see more environmental resources put into the private-property framework that would protect them, and taken out of the political framework that often degrades them. We take contributions from all sources except government. And believe me, our opposition to bailouts, or to the Tobacco Master Settlement, did not win us corporate support.
Finally, as for our opposing “non-poison methods of fighting malaria”—yes, we’re against the DDT ban, which is the single deadliest international rule ever created. So far, that is. CO2 restrictions may not be as deadly at the outset, but give them time.
mfearing (22:52:26) :
Well said!!!!
There are too many conspiracy theorists in the Anti AGW camp and too many blinkered theorists in the AGW camp.
This subject is too important for such blinkered debate. If AGW is valid then this juggernaut of AGW will not be stopable before real global damage is done. Action needs to be taken as early as possible. BUT if there is no AGW then some of the decisions being made will affect standard of living in the industrialised countries.
Some of the AGW beliefs will eventually be necessary to follow whatever happens.
OIL is NOT an infinite resource
GAS is NOT an infinite resource
Nuclear errors are too costly to contemplate
Coal is polluting
Wind/Wave/Tidal power will always require backup (gas is most sensible).
Destruction of the environmet to provide cheap oil/coal (e.g. mountain top removal) should NOT be an option.
“we do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children”
Just consider the source of the information.
I too was suprised that most of the text of this “leaked” document was taken straight from the Anti-AGW blogs. Even some of the AntiAGW terms were used – “alarmists”
That conservative, intelligent use of fossil fuels is not causing the end-of-days, but neither is pretending that all is well. The oil and gas industries have caused environmental damage and they are expected to act out of self-interest. Acting to protect their profits. That’s what companies do.
So true!
Let’s have a level headed discussion that slowly reveals what we know. Save the spit and anger for religious wars.
If only this were possible.!!!
AnnaV said
… in over a year that I have been following skeptic boards I think that everything scientific that can be said has been said and is published. It is just that AGWarmers have an agenda, which includes blinders and earplugs.
The problem is Anna you too are blinkered and will not admit there may be some truth in AGW.
This document accuses the variation in TSI with GW.
There is absolutely no evidence for this.
There is no 11 year cycle in temperature
The variation is too small to matter
TSI has not significantly increased since 1980s
Contributors here have now started suggesting a new energy that TSI does not measure.
Who is correct. The science is not setled. If AGW is a fact there is no time left to correct the problem.
Sane discussion is required.
David Ball (21:58:38) :
> I think many underestimate the significance of this blog. Even those of us who post here.
What a busy few days! I haven’t been able to participate, but most of what I have to add is added by other folk, so that’s been gratifying this year.
David’s comment got me thinking about a “singularity” ala Vernor Vinge’s stories about technology riding a hyperbolic curve rather than an exponential. Ray Kurzweil looked at the idea in his book “The Singularity is Near.”
Things are coming together faster than I expected this year. At first I thought that this might be the media that learns that the science isn’t settled, but Australia looks like its parliment will defer their cap and trade, and so much stuff has gone on recently with the ICCC conference in Washington (that had a big impact on Australia’s Senator Fielding), the NCDC talking points, Carbongate, etc that we may indeed be on a hyperbolic curve. Carbongate especially – an EPA document that was supressed internally that has may references to WUWT and surface stations. That’s something that we weren’t active on, but played a big role in its creation.
Two characteristics about hyperbolic curves:
1) In the case at hand we’re talking about a curve that increases and has a vertical asymptote, a line that it approaches but can’t pass.
2) The rising hyperbolic looks a lot like an exponential curve, the best sign of the difference is that the slope increases faster than on an exponential, but it’s only clear when you’re close to the asymptote.
Of course, time (the X axis) will pass the asymptote, and mathematically the Y axis value of the hyperbola will flip negative (hey, a tipping point!) and in our case the analogy will break down. In our case, what might happen? I could see Cap & Trade crash in flames in the senate or Obama deciding to slow things down “for more study.” Stuff could happen that leaves the media in the dust, still talking about Michael Jackson. Early fall snowstorms could push the AGW zealots into being labeled deniers.
We’ve made from the curse of Interesting Times and are well into Fascinating Times. What comes next?
Story picked up and connection made:
Carbongate
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Story picked up by CBS News – Note particularly the impact of suppressing data on any future court proceedings.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
by Declan McCullagh CBSnews June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
. . .
The EPA’s possible suppression of Carlin’s report, which lists the EPA’s John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
“The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it’s supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming. . . .
“All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday,” Carlin said. “In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment.” (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.) . . .
Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin’s report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. “The science is not there to back it up,” Barton said. “An EPA report that has been suppressed… raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don’t have an endangerment finding, you don’t need this bill. We don’t need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision.” (The endangerment finding is the EPA’s decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.) . . .
“I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. “But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA’s finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues.”
Huffington Post reposted the CBSNews story:
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
First Posted: 06-27-09 12:28 AM | Updated: 06-27-09 12:32 AM
Michelle Malkin updated her column:
EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed
By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2009 12:30 AM
EPA’s Culture of Suppression
In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a severe abuse of science by the EPA’s culture. Today’s “transparency” mantra appears to have amplified this.
Voices of EPA Scientists
Earlier in this thread, I noted that GISS has not had a very good record of accurate forecasting temperatures with its climate models. I’ve charted up all the different forecasts that we can check.
First, Hansen’s predictions from 1988 – Scenario B, which is close to the actual GHG growth which has occurred, is off by about 0.4C 50% – Scenario C, in which GHGs stop growing in the year 2000, is actually too high as well (but a better a forecast it seems).
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5277/hansenscenariobandc.png
Second, in 2005, GISS put its Model E on-line and although the hindcast stopped in 2003, one can extend its components fairly easily. Off by 0.35C 40% in just 5 years.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/478/modeleextra.png
I downloaded the climate forecasts GISS submitted to the IPCC AR4 from the Climate Explorer. They submitted several runs from 3 different models and they are all off by 0.25C 40% in just 3 years.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7442/gissar4forecasts.png
Now extend this (20 year, 5 year and 3 year) error rate out for another 90 years and imagine the accuracy.
Bill Illis, great post, may I quote it in full elsewhere?
Now that CBS has had the nerve to carry the story on their “Political Hotsheet” internet page – let’s see them put it on the air. And where are ABC, FOX, NBC, AP, Reuters, Washington Post, etc, etc.?? This is a big enough scandal (suppression of hard science by government agencies) that it deserves a place – dare we suggest – above Michael Jackson’s demise. It is the forward line of transparent government.
Suppression of facts and 98 page Reports from highly qualified scientists in a government agency is an immediate and irrefutable sign of rot. Higher ups in these bureaucracies dictate policy from top down. More disturbing than the House passage of this bill, is the cancer uncovered inside EPA – which allowed the passage.
If the Obama Administration is to be respected and taken at their word that this is a new age of transparency in government – then the President himself must answer these charges. He must call a news conference, acknowledge the disease, and detail his countermanding actions. Delay, dismissal, coverup of the rot – will thrust this President into the shoes of Richard Nixon. He has done a good job addressing the “rule of law.” This could be his opportunity to clean house – and he might be surprised at the support he gets acknowledging the disease under his own roof. Cleaning up the environment starts with cleaning up the Environmental Protection Agency. And others that suffer the same disease.
The President may then argue his energy bill without the anvil that is “global warming.” Were he to drop the onerous, falsified claims of “CO2 endangerment” – he would have an energy, jobs and security bill that might pass muster in the Senate.
Well written Pragmatic. Blimey, there’s some good stuff coming out when people get their dander up. 🙂
Ric Werme (05:46:37) :
“We’ve made from the curse of Interesting Times and are well into Fascinating Times. What comes next?”
Don’t hold your breath. No, I mean ‘Hold your breath’! (all that pollution when you exhale)
Suppression of facts and 98 page Reports from highly qualified scientists in a government agency is an immediate and irrefutable sign of rot.
It was an easy read, considering. I did not agree with all of it, but neither did Carlin; he only said it needed to be addressed. In the main, it was quite dead-on. (Unfortunately, in the EPA, that translates as DOA.)