On 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Deep Climate (19:28:30) :
I wasnt aware Carlin was laying claim to being the sole author of this document? When did this happen. As i understood it, it was a collection of points that bring into question the accuracy of using the IPCC data… Now if my memory serves me correct, on that IPCC assessment, there was a claim they where 90% confident in their climate predictions… Which is obviously an absurd proclamation when its pertaining too the modeling of a chaotic system. The simple fact that the models dont match the climate to date is totally conclusive proof that this assertion is wrong! Climate models ARE non linear. So this on its own should certainly open the door for discussion on this subject.
P.S. there are plenty o points i personally dont agree with in Carlins document. But thats not really the issue. Its a question of censorship of opposing views based on preconceived ideology.
[snip, policy – if you want to accuse people of plagiarism, put your name to it, 24 hour timeout for deepclimate]
The madness continues…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/crunch-time-eat-a-chip-reduce-co2-20090629-d2ix.html
The “P” word mentioned. I wonder how they will label fizzy pop? Most people I see while out shopping don’t check lables, unless it Gucci etc.
Deep Climate (19:28:30) :
I did visit your web site. You write for the National Inquirer? That is the style of writing I saw there.
Deep Climate (19:28:30) :
Do you have a problem with the report being withheld? Or is that part ok with you?
Also, I don’t see any significance in what you claim. Your point is irrelevant.
Deep Climate (19:28:30) :
Gavin who?
Deep Climate (20:31:16) : .…Carlin was completely unqualified to perform the review.
Following your line of reasoning Al Gore was ‘completely unqualified’ to make An Inconvenient Truth.
You would, of course, agree. 😉
Deep Climate (20:31:16) : That’s in addition to the facts that the entire report is utter and complete nonsense
I have noticed that environmental activists find science to be ‘utter and complete nonsense’.
Deep Climate (20:31:16) : It seems you are unclear on the concept of plagiarism.
Have you been in contact with these personalities you claim were ‘plagiarized’? Have they indeed confirmed your suspicions?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Deep Climate (20:31:16) :
Yes, your web site is deep something.
[REPLY – It was an internal report, not for publication, and, besides, it was fully footnoted. He neither claimed nor implied that he did any of the original research, himself. ~ Evan]
Evan,
You are sadly mistaken. None of the World Climate Report material that Carlin cut and pasted was attributed or footnoted. In fact, Carlin carefully removed all references to World Climate Report, as I explained in my first post.
evanmjones (17:29:30) : You’ll have to make it a Dove bar.
Lindt Lindor Truffles wouldn’t be available, would they?
evan,
“Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who warn that climate change legislation is the “biggest job-killing bill” ever, see a bright side: Some people who lose their jobs could be Democrat lawmakers who vote for the bill.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8583541
Deep Climate (20:50:45) :
Your point is irrelevant. You should stop while you are ahead.
“He neither claimed nor implied that he did any of the original research, himself.”
“You are sadly mistaken.”
Please provide the evidence that he claimed it was his own original ideas.
Those inquiring minds want to see it.
I’ve been thinking about the following:
“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.’ ”
Why would Al McGartland say it that way? When he says your comments do not help the *LEGAL* case, isn’t he saying something like …. “we have to posture ourselves for the courts…they’ll be reviewing our process, you know?” It doesn’t seem like a good thing for bosses at the EPA to be passing down the line. Especially if a judge eventually sees it. It just seems like an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the court. It also probably opens the door up to all kinds of additional questions.
It’s one thing to say “we all have to pull together as an agency to create a policy that will work.” It’s another thing to add… “we have to pretend so the legal case looks good.”
Dr. Carlin was just interviewed on FoxNews (June 30, 8:48 am). He’s not a very eloquent interviewee, but the anchors did a good job of getting his story across.
Outstanding work Anthony and Charles!!!
Looks like it’s finally starting to mushroom… I’m on vacation this week, and while listening to the radio, Rush had it, Sean had it on radio and TV, it was raised on the floor of the house, Fox News just interviewed Alan Carlin, and the new google news result: 63 stories with “alan carlin EPA”. Glenn Beck spent some time on it last night, he won’t be giving up on this story anytime soon… He broke in several times: Michael Jackson Update: Still Dead.
Sen Inhofe is calling for an investigation.
Why no one is presenting the evidence and trying to educate the public I’m not sure, but this might open the door to some real debate. We’ll see.
Anthony Watts:
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.
1 week? The fact that the EPA was going to have a ruling on endangerment has been known for two years since the Supreme Court ruling in 2007. Then there’s the fact that Carlin’s most recent iteration “in part builds on three previous reports (Carlin, 2007), Carlin (2007a), and Carlin (2008)”, a comment included in the original posted draft and removed from the final draft to be replaced by the “severe time constraints” disclaimer.
The claim of “1 week” is an unsupportable crutch.
In my opinion ,Carlin is quite correct in his statements asking for better clarification and review of the science behind global warming . Here are just some of the recent and new findings by NOAA just back in 2008. The IPCC report does seem to be obsolete when compared to these findings . The findings below are a partial list of the NOAA key findings .These findings are also in conflict with the recent Whitehouse & NOAA climate report where they claim 50 years of global warming but the findings below show that the warmest years only existed 1997-2006 and virtually all of the warming since 1951 occurred after 1970. So there appears to be some conflicting information between the various government, NOAA and EPA scientific points of view .
• Seven of the warmest ten years for annual surface temperatures since 1951 have occurred in the last Decade (1997 to 2006).
• Virtually all of the warming since 1951 has occurred after 1970.
• More than half of the warming is likely the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing of climatechange.
• Changes in ocean temperatures likely explain a substantial fraction of the anthropogenic warming of North America.
• The spatial variations in surface temperature change over North America are unlikely to be the result of anthropogenic forcing alone.
• The spatial variations in surface temperature change over North America are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation,
especially during winter.
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-3/sap1-3-final-all.pdf
Alan Carlin was interviewed this morning on Fox and Friends. A man taking a risk, I would think what with 38 years in a job and whatever benefits that brings. As he said, as of last night he still had a job but the work place is tense.
I did record so if not available can upload somewhere.
[Phil I’ve told you before, I will not have you accuse people who put their name to public documents of “plagarism” or anything else when you yourself won’t use your own name or your academic institution. Grow a spine or don’t post – Anthony Watts]
NOTE to Phil. and All posters on WUWT
If you wish to accuse people of things like plagiarism, then you need to put your name on it.
That goes for everybody. I don’t mind opinions under handles. But, if you are going to make an accusation like plagarism, that requires stepping up. Otherwise, such posts will be deleted. – Anthony
24 hour timeout for Phil.
Mick J: Here is a story about his appearance on Fox News. It wonders whether leftists will treat this whistleblower differently than other whistleblowers.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Suppressed-EPA-scientist-breaks-silence-speaks-on-Fox-News-49513762.html
This will be of interest: Alan Carlin appeared on Fox & Friends this morning. I posted the video here…
http://algorelied.com/?p=2377
I would read this report with a large grain of salt.
Alan Carlin is an economist at EPA, not a climate scientist. This is his first technical analysis of the current state of climate science, and he admits it has not be reviewed by others more familiar with the field.
Anyone can select literature that supports an initial prejudice, but that doesn’t accurately reflect the balance of the evidence.
He may be well-intentioned, but he may also be poorly informed.
[REPLY: Al Gore is not a climate scientist, yet he gets to testify before congress on the issue. Carlin writes a report several notches above Al Gore’s slide show in sophistication, yet his view is squashed at the starting gate. Gore has no science degree. Carlin is a senior analyst at the EPA, and Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. If his entire background was economics, you might have a point. As it stands, you don’t. – Anthony]