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.
“If his entire background was economics, you might have a point.”
The Czech President claims that as an economist he is trained in statistics and trends and he is quite happy that there is no provable influence of man of the climate.
The idea that only climate scientists understand climate science is immensely childish, though I concede that some people have to find excuses for their ignorance.
Real scientists, like Lief, while top of their field, show immense patience with the genuinely curious and can put complex ideas across in simple (ish) images.
Actually many advances have been made by scientists who didn’t seem to be scientists at the time, for instance a patent clerk had quite a good year in 1905.
Anthony, I have to say I find your policy stand regarding anonymous plagiarism accusations a bit disingenuous. After all, this is the same blog that took a considerable amount of pride in facilitating communications with an anonymous source within the EPA who was accusing the agency of suppression.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/
Regarding Deep Climate, he accurately points out that sections of Carlin’s report are lifted almost word-for-word from contrarian blog postings without attribution, with the pronouns in Carlin’s report indicating his personal ownership of the work. The evidence is openly there for anyone to examine. Whether or not DC associates his name with the discovery is immaterial, as you concluded with your anonymous EPA source. How those actions reflect on Carlin is for the reader to decide.
Michael Searcy (14:07:37) :
It is not plagiarism.
————————————————-
plagiarism–noun—1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism
———————————————-
(n) plagiarism (a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarism
———————————————
Plagiarism…”use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
———————————————
(v) plagiarize…(take without referencing from someone else’s writing or speech; of intellectual property)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize
———————————————
plagiarizing :
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing
———————————————–
plagiarism–“the deliberate or reckless representation of another’s words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution in connection with submission of academic work, whether graded or otherwise.”
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html
————————————————
Carlin does not claim that it is his original ideas.
Can this be the end of the plagiarism accusations now please?
Class dismissed.
You guys are pathetic. Is this all you have? This is the only thing you can use to distract people away from the heart of this huge news story?
It’s all over the news now—except CNN for obvious reasons.
Klockarman (12:38:12) :
EXCELLENT VIDEO Klockarman!!
————————————————-
Anthony, would you consider doing a post on this video?
————————————————-
http://algorelied.com/?p=2377
Hopeful regards,
Gene JWT
I don’t want to be remissed and not add my real name to my request for a post on the Carbingate videos,
Best regards,
Gene Nemetz
aka, Just Want Results…
formerly,
Just Want Truth… (I’ve got the truth, now I want results)
“Michael Searcy (14:07:37) :
Regarding Deep Climate, he accurately points out that sections of Carlin’s report are lifted almost word-for-word from contrarian blog postings without attribution, with the pronouns in Carlin’s report indicating his personal ownership of the work.”
One problem is that Deep Climate jumps the gun and assumes that this proves plagarism. It does not. For one thing, if you look at the web site allegedly plagarized from, there is no attribution as to who wrote the article. We know that Carlin prepared and conducted seminars at EPA that were attended by climate scientists/reasearchers. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if, when presenting one of these seminars, Michaels or some of his colleagues were in attendance. It’s possible that the web article was based on Carlin’s or his co-author’s own work, i.e. it simply could have been a derivative of presentation material obtained from one of Carlin’s seminars and posted anonymously with his permission.
This is a perfect example of a tendency by AGW advocates to fail to think through all possible scenarios, and jump to a conclusion that they want to reach. I personally have no idea who was the original author of the seemingly identical material at issue here. Neither does Deepclimate. But without first identifying the name of the orignal author of the material, any allegation of plagarism is premature.
Just Want Results… (15:34:52) :
Carlin does not claim that it is his original ideas.
Statements such as the following say otherwise…
“In discussing their results I find some very interesting language, to say the least….Again, I tend to say this moulin link to drowning the World Trade Center Memorial is nonsense, and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.”
kurt (20:28:07) :
it simply could have been a derivative of presentation material obtained from one of Carlin’s seminars and posted anonymously with his permission
Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much. Especially considering a year prior in 2007, “Carlin argues that the collapse of the major ice sheets is one of the most serious threats we face.”
So, could Carlin have been the source of the WCR posting? I guess anything is possible.
Of course, all of this sidesteps the fact that Carlin’s report relies on blog postings.
Of course, your postings sidestep one point (and the only point that is of any importance) –
The fact of suppression of this report.
The report could be complete junk. It could be total gibberish. All EPA needed to do is to say ” We looked at it and it is wrong”. Instead they suppressed it.
That is a critical mistake.
And no amount of you trying to dig dirt on the author of this report makes it go away.
You have to admit that point before we can intelligently discuss anything else.
“Michael Searcy (05:53:56) :
“Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much.”
I don’t think we have enough information about Carlin’s activities within EPA or the source of posted content on Michael’s web page to assess the likelihood, one way or another. I certainly wouldn’t put money on the outcome that Carlin was the original source of the material on Michael’s site, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t be shocked if turned out that he was. The link you provide, if anything, makes it more plausible that Carlin was the original source given that we know that his material is publicly disseminated and that he drew from prior material of his when preparing his comments.
My point is that these kinds of possibilities should be considered before leveling a charge of plagarism at someone.
it is juvenile to continue to charge carbongate with plagiarism.
How about focusing on the science for once? That is the heart of the issue. And that is one thing you have talked about.
Care to talk about the science?
Statements such as the following say otherwise…
“In discussing their results I find some very interesting language, to say the least….Again, I tend to say this moulin link to drowning the World Trade Center Memorial is nonsense, and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.”
Where exactly do you see Alan Carlin saying these are his original ideas? I don’t see it anywhere. I think those ‘inquiring minds’ do.
This is silly!! But don’t let me stop you from looking silly.
Of course, all of this sidesteps the fact that Carlin’s report relies on blog postings.
I see. Is that the second wave of attempting to discredit the report–saying it’s all just some baseless blog drivel?
Have you noticed the world is in a cooling trend? Manmade co2 continues to rise rapidly. But the earth is cooling—are you ok with that?
Michael Searcy (05:53:56) :
BTW, thanks for putting ‘blog postings’ in bolds. It belies your insecurities.
I’m wondering if environmental activists were looking forward to a lot of money coming their way from Waxman-Markey and Carbongate is raining on their parade.
So they grasp at ‘plagiarism’ straws.
could someone tell me the difference between these?
http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
why are we below the anomoly in this one, but below it in other? etc.
@Mark:
Oh fer gawd’s sake. Who the hell cares about your wack job Haliburton conspiracy theories. BTW: MICHAEL MOORE owned stock in Halliburton, as well.
Wars have always been a financial boon for investors. If you want to bitch about profiteering, start with WWI. You have a lot of catching up to do.
Excellent report!! I knew there had to be scientists who dispute so called ‘Global Warming’. We are closer to ‘Global Cooling’. Thank you for sending this report for me to read – all 100 pages of it. A job well done. Thank you Alan Carlin.
From an actual scientific source, “Science Magazine”
IPCC concludes:
“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
Do you know the sentence “Et pourtant elle tourne”.
In the past Gallilée said that the Earth is not fix in the center and turn over the Sun. All the sientist at these time said “It is not true”. It’s quite the same thing today. It is not because the scientists said that the human is at the origin of warming that they are true.