RELEASED The censored EPA CO2 endangerment document – final report

EPA-Carlin-FinalOn June 25th the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a draft copy of the suppressed EPA report by EPA employee Alan Carlin critical of the EPA’s position on Carbon Dioxide saying:

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.

CEI notes that: 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.

I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here, courtesy of our verified contact at the EPA, who shall remain anonymous. For some background on this contact, developed with the help of Tom Fuller at the San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, please read the WUWT story below. The download link is also below.

Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management

The title page of the final report from Alan Carlin of the EPA reads:

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act

By Alan Carlin

NCEE/OPEI

Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009

March 16, 2009

Alan prepared an update to this document which is on page 3, I’m reproducing it here for our readers:


Important Note on the Origins of These Comments

These comments were prepared during the week of March 9-16, 2009 and are based on the March 9 version of the draft EPA Technical Support document for the endangerment analysis for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. On March 17, the Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) in the EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation communicated his decision not to forward these comments along the chain-of-command that would have resulted in their transmission to the Office of Air and Radiation, the authors of the draft TSD.

These comments (dated March 16) represent the last version prepared prior to the close of the internal EPA comment period as modified on June 27 to correct some of the non-substantive problems that could not be corrected at the time. No substantive change has been made from the version actually submitted on March 16. The following example illustrates the type of changes made on June 27. Prior to March 16 the draft comments were prepared as draft comments by NCEE with Alan Carlin and John Davidson listed as authors. In response to internal NCEE comments this was changed on March 16 to single author comments with assistance acknowledged by John Davidson. There was insufficient time, however, because of deadlines imposed by the Office of Air and Radiation, to make the corresponding change in the use of the word “we” to “I” implicit in the change in listed authorship. This change has been made in this version.

It is very important that readers of these comments understand that these comments were prepared under severe time constraints. The actual time available was approximately 4-5 working days. It was therefore impossible to observe normal scholarly standards or even to carefully proofread the comments. As a result there are undoubtedly numerous unresolved inconsistencies and other problems that would normally have been resolved with more normal deadlines. No effort has been made to resolve any possible substantive issues; only a few of the more evident non-substantive ones have been resolved in this version.

It should be noted, of course, that these comments represent the views of the author and not those of the US Environmental Protection Agency or the NCEE.

Alan Carlin

June 27, 2009


UPDATE: Before downloading, please read the paragraph above from Alan Carlin to get some perspective. Certainly, this document is not perfect. How could it be? The EPA gave an internal comment period of 1 week on the most far reaching “finding” the agency has ever dealt with. This short window was unprecedented. So ask yourself, could you produce a paper like this, covering many disciplines outside of your own, that is “perfect” on 5 working days notice?

The EPA’s procedure here is the culprit.

Download the final report from Alan Carlin here, link:  Endangerment comments v7b1 (PDF 4MB)


Sponsored IT training links:

Get guaranteed success in 1Y0-A11 exam using best quality 000-200 prep tools including 642-611 dumps and other study resources.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bill D

For what is called a “scientific report” there are very few references from science–mostly citations of internet blog. I’ve never seen an EPA report or any other scientific report, with so little reliance on scientific studies.
REPLY: The EPA only gave a few days for internal comments, read page 3. The real problem here is not Carlin’s report, but the fact that the EPA threw caution to the wind, and gave a very small comment period internally, which was unheard of for something of such importance. It’s just like our boneheaded Congress adding 300+ pages to the “Climate Change Bill” at 3AM the morning before the vote. Who could refute that with perfect citations in that short of time? Who could do it in a week?
The process is corrupt. – Anthony

enough

Several issues with the EPA in the past related to what is happening now:
1. Browner when head of the EPA for Clinton was sued for trying to silence an insider.
2. Do not understand full set of details, but EPA (same time period) was sued for passing funds to non profit groups with out proper cause.
3. Browner when leaving the EPA supposedly erased all the hard drives(while under court order not to) to cover up 2 above.
4. Supposedly Landmark Legal sued and now has a data base of all EPA grants to enviro non-profits. Waiting to hear back on how to access there data base.
*****************
How much of the stimulus bill funds will show up in the hands of non-profits running agw info-mercials?
When a non-profit org becomes involved in politics, how is there status challanged?
The Ad Council has formed an alliance with the United Way, needless to say, I no longer donate to the United Way

layne Blanchard

I see Carbongate made the IBD editorials.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

juan

Comes to mind the old proverb: “Marry in haste; repent at leisure.”

mkurbo

I wrote an email to Congressman Boehner…
http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/
>>>
To House Republican Leader John Boehner:
Sir, I was honored by your speech on the floor of congress in regard to the Climate Bill. For a brief moment I felt as if someone was actually fighting for the American people and their right to have a intelligent debate on this subject.
This Climate Bill is based on false science and run-away ideology. The world’s scientist’s are finally coming out in number to address the false claims made by the IPCC and those alarmists that would have us believe it’s something more than a natural (warming or cooling) cycle.
This bill will cause massive job losses and devastate our economy.
Thank you for your efforts,
Mk

Bill D

As some who writes and reviews scientific studies, I still don ‘t understand how one can claim a report has been supressed if it is only available in an early draft that is incomplete and in need of fact checking and references. When I write a scientific article I write numerous drafts and often give it to colleagues for informal review, especially if I do not have co-authors who are also experts in the field. Dozens of times a year, I also do this kind of informal peer review for younger scientists from around the world. It’s the author’s resonsibility to make sure that a “scientific report” is accurate and complete before making it public.
Congressional bills, of course, have no resemblance to scientific studies.

layne Blanchard

On my way home this evening, heard an ad on the radio regarding a young girl who didn’t unplug her cell phone charger when it wasn’t in use…. and advising children to “do their part” to conserve energy. Then quoted a website ending in “dot Gov” How far will this go?
REPLY: There’s nothing wrong with conserving energy. Destroying our energy creating capability with excessive government intrusion and taxes, that’s something entirely different. – Anthony

D. King
Just Want Results...

I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here,
I just sent the following quote from the PDF to News Tips at Drudge along with the link to this post here at WUWT.
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming.”
I’m not kidding when I say I want the world to know about this.

Hi all,
After a wearying experience at RealClimate I have developed my own list of what I call ‘Next Generation Questions on Global Warming.’ I’m asking for help from the WUWT community on both the questions and the answers. See here:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Next-generation-questions-for-global-warming
Thanks in advance for any help that is forthcoming.

Jack Hughes

“Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it’s insignificant compared to the other things.
Most of us don’t see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. ”
This is a quote from a review at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
The review concerns Cambridge Professor David MacKay – his site is at
http://withouthotair.com/

kmye

I see they pulled out the Dunning-Kruger effect on Mr. Fuller over at RC…There needs to be a Godwin’s Alarmist Law for this…

The report is marred by the two (!) Figures 2.15 using 1) the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI and 2) the PMOD TSI where the decrease of TSI at the present minimum is due to instrumental error.
REPLY: No dispute there Leif, but please read Alan’s statement on page 3. The issue is that the time for comments internally was a week or less, not nearly enough time for a fully fact checked commentary, and this was apparently the only rebuttal. EPA ran turbo mode on this with no cares. Look at the bigger picture, not the details. – Anthony

RoyFOMR

POLICE EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE!

RoyFOMR

SLOGAN

Sandy

Hi Tom Fuller,
Was going to add a comment at the Examiner but the verification image didn’t come through. My comment was:
A few hundred million years of fossil records show that 5-10C extra temperature and CO2 levels 2-5 times present lead to an extremely healthy biosphere (big animals big appetites). The records also show that a CO2 tipping point to runaway Venus hell is a boogie-monster for kids, since nature has abused the biosphere way beyond anything we can imagine and yet, amazingly, it bounces back.

Just Want Results...

Tom Fuller (23:45:22) :
You may find this helpful :
“Climate Audit Submission to EPA”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354
PDF of Steve McIntyre’s submission to the EPA
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/McIntyre_Submission_to_EPA.pdf

Just Want Results...

Tom Fuller (23:45:22) :
This may be helpful also :
“Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation”
PDF :
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CaseforDueDiligence_Cda.pdf

Section 1.5 (p. 9-12) on Greenland ice melt appears to be lifted almost word-for-word from Pat Michael’s World Climate Report blog. And there’s no attribution whatsoever as far as I can tell (not to mention that the Carlin/WCR interpretation of van de Wal et al is highly misleading).
See:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/

GeoS

Hi Tom Fuller too,
Was going to add a comment at the Examiner as well but the verification image didn’t come through for me either. My comment was:
See http://www.informath.org/
“The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”, Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995 (2007). doi: 10.1260/095830507782616913. Remarks.

Bill D. As some who writes and reviews scientific studies, I still don’t understand how one can claim a report has been supressed [sic] if it is only available in an early draft that is incomplete and in need of fact checking and references.
Please Bill, don’t be dense. The report was written in a week because that’s all the time allotted, despite the significant legal import of the EPA’s “endangerment” finding. Do you write comprehensive scientific studies in a week? With all facts checked and referenced? If so, please produce such a document and proof that a week is all you spent on it.
It is unclear that EPA higher-ups even knew that such a report was being drafted. However, when those higher-ups found out about the (hastily written) report, they refused to forward it or to allow it to be seen by the public (or Congress), and they forbade the author from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. The author was apparently reassigned to other duties not commensurate with his (former) position or status. Please see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/the-epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and-apparently-decides-issues-in-advance-of-public-comment/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/
and numerous articles that have appeared in the national media.
All that amounts to suppression and a coverup that was exposed by WUWT and others, thanks to whistleblowers within the EPA.
Now Bill, I don’t argue with your statement that you don’t understand. I take you at your word on that. But (most of) the rest of us get it.
PS to Leif: so you don’t concur on each and every point in the hastily written, suppressed report? Do you not understand (like Bill) that the EPA pushed through the “endangerment” finding with no scientific balance or integrity, incomplete disclosure and review, and some amazingly outlandish and unscientific claims? Don’t you think your criticisms would be more useful if they were directed at the details of the “endangerment” finding that treats CO2 as a pollutant? Personally, I don’t see how nitpicking this report and ignoring the bizarre finding serves science or the public weal.

Darell C. Phillips

“Who shall remain anonymous” once again has my public thanks.
For Tom Fuller, the most glaring insight for me is how plants seem to be genetically built for a much higher supply of CO2 but we act as if that is a bad thing. One of my favorite articles here at WUWT is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/09/high-co2-boosts-plant-respiration-potentially-affecting-climate-and-crops/
My favorite paragraph of this article is:
“The results were striking. At least 90 different genes coding the majority of enzymes in the cascade of chemical reactions that govern respiration were switched on (expressed) at higher levels in the soybeans grown at high CO2 levels. This explained how the plants were able to use the increased supply of sugars from stimulated photosynthesis under high CO2 conditions to produce energy, Leakey said. The rate of respiration increased 37 percent at the elevated CO2 levels. The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the seeds, Leakey said. “The expression of over 600 genes was altered by elevated CO2 in total, which will help us to understand how the response is regulated and also hopefully produce crops that will perform better in the future,” he said.”

pkatt

1. Browner when head of the EPA for Clinton was sued for trying to silence an insider.
Thats a constructive start. Time to play rough.

John Silver

“REPLY: The EPA only gave a few days for internal comments, read page 3. The real problem here is not Carlin’s report, but the fact that the EPA threw caution to the wind, and gave a very small comment period internally, which was unheard of for something of such importance. It’s just like our boneheaded Congress adding 300+ pages to the “Climate Change Bill” at 3AM the morning before the vote. Who could refute that with perfect citations in that short of time? Who could do it in a week?
The process is corrupt. – Anthony”
They’re not boneheaded, they are clever fascists.

Allan M

“The actual time available was approximately 4-5 working days. It was therefore impossible to observe normal scholarly standards or even to carefully proofread the comments.”
And the 300+ extra pages when no-one had the chance to even read them (Any honourable politician, Yea or Nay, would have refused to support the bill because of this).
These people are just crooks. They act like they don’t believe it themselves. They’re just desparate to get their way.

juan

Bill D
“When I write a scientific article I write numerous drafts and often give it to colleagues for informal review, especially if I do not have co-authors who are also experts in the field.”
You do all this in five days?

RhudsonL

The age of the bloggers may be enough for a collective fossil record. As such, use guys are making the BLM and Corps of Engineers look like Red Cross volunteers next to the EPA.

Jack Hughes

Here’s my point for Tom Fuller
(Tom: you need to fix your comment / captcha thing. It’s bad. Very bad.)
A thought experiment:
Imagine the world unites and applies some of the anti-carbon medicine. The medicine turns out much better than anyone hoped for. Within a short period global temperatures level off, polar icecaps return to their normal sizes, weather seems normal worldwide, no islands need evacuation, no species go extinct. The extreme events like hurricanes, tornadoes, killer heatwaves don’t flare up and terrify us all.
OK well you don’t need to imagine this future utopia because it describes today’s regular old world. It ain’t broken and it don’t need fixing.

Mark

“The process is corrupt. – Anthony”
And this is surprising, how? Really… think about it. When you have Chris Dodd’s wife serving on 3 health company boards all the while he is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill…that SCREAMS of corruption.
If he were a judge, he’d have to recuse himself, but I guess the hint of impropriety doesn’t matter when you serve the people. It’s a sick, sick process. I just wish our folks would grow a pair and actually demonstrate vigorously against our govt…peacefully of course…what we need is a transfusion of the passion of the Iranian people to demand reform…REAL reform…not reform that sounds good, but reform that boots corruption out of our government. If Obama could grow a pair and bring to light all the double deals, etc going on, then maybe we could start moving toward this goal, but it won’t happen. If this guy, who had the best chance of actually bringing reform to the process, folds under pressure, then I don’t think we have a chance at it. It is depressing.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/06/sen_chris_dodds_wife_serves_on.html

Grumbler

“Deep Climate (01:09:59) :
Section 1.5 (p. 9-12) on Greenland ice melt appears to be lifted almost word-for-word from Pat Michael’s World Climate Report blog. And there’s no attribution whatsoever as far as I can tell (not to mention that the Carlin/WCR interpretation of van de Wal et al is highly misleading).
See:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/
Sorry, did the EPA reject it because it was flawed in parts? As are probably some of the pro warming contributions. I didn’t see that reasoning anywhere?
Get real. It was rejected for political reasons.
cheers
David

Grumbler

“Sandy (00:25:06) :
Hi Tom Fuller,
Was going to add a comment at the Examiner but the verification image didn’t come through. My comment was:
A few hundred million years of fossil records show that 5-10C extra temperature and CO2 levels 2-5 times present lead to an extremely healthy biosphere (big animals big appetites). ”
Agreed, but perhaps those animals weren’t so big? 🙂
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621195620.htm
Notice the quote;
“Scientists have discovered that the original statistical model used to calculate dinosaur mass is flawed, suggesting dinosaurs have been oversized.”
What! A long standing, sophisticated, supercomputer model accepted by consensus wrong?! Unheard of! [sarc off].
cheers
David

Jack Green

I’m hoarding light bulbs, toilet paper, and gasoline. Just kidding.
We need to follow the money trail that leads to this EPA Czar Browner. The only way to stop this is to discover the scandal that’s going on. The only problem is nothing is a scandal with the media we have now. Wasting money is viewed as wasting only rich people’s money. These are very strange times we live in.
A nationwide strike is the only thing that will get their attention. Maybe when we have the July 4th tea parties we have a week long strike by the producers?

Mark (03:58:55),
California’s two senators are just as corrupt. Sen. Barbara Boxer kited over one hundred bad checks made out to “cash”, and cashed them at the senate’s U.S. Post Office annex over a several year period.
Despite repeated requests from the USPS to make her checks good, Boxer ignored them …until a PO’d post office worker called the local newspaper, which ran the story. Boxer then promptly made the checks good [what would happen to you if you had bounced even one check to the post office, eh?].
Boxer got pretty much of a free pass from the media, which did minimal reporting on the crime, and then buried it. No charges were ever filed against Boxer.
Then there’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein — who used her position as Chair of the Senate Military Apppropriations subcommittee to funnel tens of $millions in NO BID contracts awarded by Feinstein’s committee to companies owned by her husband, Richard Blum. No major media carried the story. But it was carried by the Metro free papers, and DiFi was forced to resign her position as committee Chair [just google “Feinstein, Metro” for the low-down].
These people are thoroughly corrupt. They use their elected position for self-enrichment. Is it any wonder that they are selling out our country for personal gain? And does it make me a conspiracy theorist to see that this cap & trade bill was bought the same way?

Mark

Smokey (04:40:30)
Don’t forget about Cheney and Halliburton / KBR getting all that business when the war kicked off.

Ron de Haan

I am really shocked by the entire process, the bias, the corruption and the vicious objectives behind this scheme.
On the other hand I am honored to read a report because an insider could not take the abuse of an evaluation process any more and informed the outside world.
I am extremely honored that WUWT is now recognized for it’s objective approach on the science behind the facts.
Even the report is full with quotes and references from WUWT.
It is a sparkle of hope for a future with less Government, less rules and much more room for individual freedom and policies based on integrity and common sense.
We were doing pretty well until Government screwed up our financial system, we were doing well until Government started to screw up our energy system resulting in high food prices, high fuel prices etc.
We can do very well without the corrupt United Nations and the thousands of political bodies and NGO’s that work against our interests.
We can very well do without the “Change” introduced by a President who falsifies science and bends the rules.
All those visiting WUWT know what’s really going on.
For this I am extremely grateful.

Someone needs to post this on WikiLeaks.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/

UK Sceptic

All the proof you need that Cap and Trade is a political agenda. Let’s hope that the US Senate makes a ruling that’s based on fact and throws out this insanity passed by Congress.
As for the ways and means this monstrosity is progressing, your wonderful Administration needs to look no further than the EU and the UK Parliament for lessons in how to BS the public. All the signs are there. It worked for our lot and it looks to be working for yours.
Damn!

It appears that, whether through Waxman-Markey or EPA, the US government is committed to declaring “war” on climate change, based on questionable intelligence, without a broad coalition of allies and with insufficient weapons and inadequate training. This war is lost before it even begins!

PaulH

Will the EPA say this report wasn’t peer reviewed and therefore ignorable? 😉

Dan Lee

Tom,
> “After a wearying experience at RealClimate I have developed my own list of what I call ‘Next Generation Questions on Global Warming.’ I’m asking for help from the WUWT community on both the questions and the answers.”
If current temperatures are below the error bars on the IPCC’s original report, then that original hypothesis has already been falsified by observation.
To continue repeating the same hypothesis every few years with new model runs starting from a more recent date is simply moving the goalposts. That’s an “F-” on any Science 101 test, since that makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable.
The hypothesis is that CO2 was the most important factor in the ~30 year warming we observed up until about 10 years ago.
That hypothesis is well over 20 years old now. That is plenty of time to accumulate observational evidence to either confirm or reject it. Models are no longer necessary.
To support the hypothesis you need a proposed mechanism (how does CO2 warm the climate), and a set of observations that demonstrate that mechanism at work over and above all the other influences on climate, such as oceanic warming/cooling cycles, jet stream cycles, land-use changes, etc.
Currently you can look at the temperature graphs and say “that spike is from this El Nino, and that dip is from that La Nina or that volcano.” You can point to the trend from the 1800’s and say “that 150 year warming trend is recovery from the Little Ice Age”, or point to a longer trend and say “we’re returning to the temperatures of the Medieval Warming period”.
Where can you point and say “that’s from CO2” without physically altering historical data to make the current trend appear to be unusual?
THAT’s what the current discussion is about. If you want a new generation of questions, ask what’s so unusual about the period we’re in now. What we’re currently experiencing is not unusual, it does not fall outside the long-term natural cycles.
The mechanism proposed – that CO2 has a positive feedback relationship with water vapor – has never been demonstrated. There is no peer-reviewed paper that I know of that shows that. If there were, and if that mechanism was confirmed by observation, then case-closed, AGW would be confirmed, and ocean-front communities would be investing in sea-walls and we’d all be preparing to adapt.
But we have none of this. We have 20 years of arm-waving, bad temperature data, re-writing of historical records, and threats against scientists who dare speak truth to power.
So we don’t really need a new generation of questions. We need answers to the original ones.
I love your articles BTW, I’ve been emailing links to them to friends. Excellent work!

ohioholic

Apologies if this has been asked before, but wouldn’t hot water vapor rise and transport heat away from the surface?

Steven Hill

Companies to avoid…
But a host of companies and utilities touted the bill, including Nike Inc., Starbucks Corp., Exelon Corp., Symantec Corp. and PG&E Corp. — a coalition that House Democrats said was invaluable

Curiousgeorge

The EPA/Carlin story also appeared on CNET yesterday: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html , so it is getting around.
I also send a link to this thread to Progressive Farmer Magazine, which has been carrying stories about climate change, ethanol, etc.

Hank

Whats the process over at EPA moving forward from here? Presumably they are now tabulating and writing a report summarizing all the comments that people, businesses and organizations sent in. It seems conceivable that there would be more studies to do after the comment period. In an ideal world this is where non-epa scientists get their input and suggestions heard. Also in an ideal world this is where someone over at EPA says, “Anthony Watts is right, we’ve got to do something about these weather stations;” or where someone does something about Steve McIntyre’s complaint that the science is not adequate because gov’t scientists all play “dog in the manger” with their data and methods. It even seems possible that Alan Carlin would be given opportunity to refine the things he has to say. It doesn’t seem this thing is ripe for lawsuits until the EPA reacts to comments.

Sandy (00:25:06)
Hi Sandy,
You two points are of course correct, however I am worried that too many people jump to the wrong conclusions because of them.
It’s undoubtedly true that there was far more life on land, and it was more widespread than today, when we had 1000 ppm plus CO2. It wasn’t so good for ocean life because of the increased acidification, but that’s another matter. It’s probably true that if we allowed CO2 and methane levels etc. to rise to the levels of those far off days, when the biosphere was larger than it is today, that things might become more comfortable generally for life IN THE LONG RUN. The huge problem with this point of view is that it ignores what happens in the interim while we are getting from our current climate to the very high CO2 led climate you seem to think is a good idea.
By analogy, California seems to have a stronger economy than Arizona and if you are from Arizona you may want to improve your family’s employment prospects so you might consider it a good idea to up sticks and move because once you are there things would be great. The only problem is the Grand Canyon is on your path and you would plummet to an unpleasant doom on the journey. A small number of your neighbours making a similar journey (with luck) could make it through to the promised land but that would be little consolation to the majority who never made it.
In essence, the likely disruption to the climate and species extinctions that is likely in the process of getting to the high CO2 environment is way too risky to chance.
In any case the life and ecosystems that benefited from that high carbon environment hundreds of millions of years ago evolved to fit those changing circumstances over millions of years. It simply couldn’t do it in a couple of hundred.
Your point about runaway feedback effects is almost certainly correct because although there are positive feedbacks they are not believed to be greater than unity – a Venusian environment is definitely not on the cards from the basic physics. But I don’t know any serious climatologist who claims that an out and out runaway is likely. Of course, a climate that stabilised at 6-7 degrees higher would be a catastrophe for most life until a few million years had gone by to allow it to adapt. Things would get very sticky for all of us in the meantime…
sincerely,
Nick Palmer
my blogspot: “Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer”
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Ron de Haan

WUWT reference in Climate Video:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=587

Bernal

The Examiner comment thingie pops up when you hit submit.
Soon we’ll all be holding our breath while using both sides of the toilet paper or get fined.