This story is a joint effort between the San Francisco Examiner Environmental Policy blogger Thomas Fuller and WUWT.
Here is what started it all. An email as part of a package of emails posted as public comment in the EPA endangerment finding by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who caught EPA administration red-handed in concealment of internal dissent as well as apparently proceeding with plans in advance of public comment.
From this PDF circulated by CEI, here is the most pertinent email:
Yesterday, Thomas Fuller, who writes for the Examiner in San Francisco, noted as many other WUWT readers did, a comment from “anonymous” posted on the WUWT thread “The EPA suppresses dissent and opinion, and apparently decides issues in advance of public comment”
After I confirmed the email, one of our moderators, Charles, confirmed the originating IP address. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Fuller reported in comments:
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.
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.
Mr. Fuller was skeptical of the claims made by “anonymous” which I fully understand and appreciate, he wrote:
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.
However, “anonymous” was concerned about retaliation within EPA, and both his email and IP addresses checked out.
“anonymous” replied to Mr. Fuller, and Charles offered some facilitating help:
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.
To which the reply was:
I discussed the idea with Charles, and emails were exchanged, and we stood back and waited for the results.
The results were a surprise to Mr. Fuller, and he responded with this excellent article below, for which I’ve posted a link and a couple of excerpts to.
Please visit Mr. Fuller’s blog to give him some traffic and some kudos for excellence in journalism. I was pleased that team WUWT was able to assist, and it goes to demonstrate that reasonable people on opposite sides of an issue can work together to find truth. Also, let’s all give major props to WUWT’s “Charles the moderator” for his role as facilitator. – Anthony
A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.
The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA’s view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin’s report and said that it was ‘based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications’ that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.
The EPA’s draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments–except for Carlin’s.
Read the entire story here at the SF Environmental Examiner