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.
Leif Svalgaard (12:11:59) : “Lucky him that they did, better to be censored than to be shown wrong.”
Maybe. This isn’t the first time the EPA has acted similarly. Checkout the DDT ruling for one example of past shenanigans regarding internal reports. Apprently set a precedent.l Note the total lack of pretense in searching out both sides with point-by-point consideration. So predictable. Hopefully this issue has broad enough reach to finally place a leash on the EPA charge-ahead rule making process. I’m realistic enough to think it will still be easier to find a talking dog.
“Leif Svalgaard (12:11:59) :
DAV (11:55:21) :
The only impression one gets is that the EPA would have ignored him regardless of merit.
Lucky him that they did, better to be censored than to be shown wrong.”
It’s better for Carlin that he was not proven wrong, but it looks WAAAAAYYYY worse for the EPA if they are out there dismissing any dissenting opinions based on the point-of-view and not by proving them wrong. That is the issue here. I don’t know Carlin and, to be honest, I’m not personally concerned with what he says or does. The EPA, however, (who could possibly be put in a position to dictate to me my entire lifestyle based on how they proceed with CO2 regulations), better be dang sure they are doing things for the right reasons, i.e. scientific proof.
Leif Svalgaard (12:11:59) :
“Lucky him that they did, better to be censored than to be shown wrong”
I cannot imagine that you seriously condone censorship for every occasion that someone errs. Please don’t make me doubt your sense of morality.
“Global temperatures have declined-extending the current downturn to 11 years…”
It is a disappointment to see included here the classic double cherry-pick of 1998 ‘n all that.
There’s the choice of 1998, which had the largest El Nino event in a century.
And, there followed the necessary choice of HADCRUT3 data. HADCRUT3 omits the Arctic Ocean from its calculations, because there aren’t any permanent weather stations out on the ice.
But the Arctic Ocean is ‘the fastest-warming area of the globe’.
The GISS dataset does include the Arctic Ocean, by estimating those temperatures based on the nearest shore weather station. In GISS, 2005 is slightly warmer than 1998.
For the most recent explanation of why this is actually a period of warming…not cooling…
tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/
“Steven Hill (06:04:47) :
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”
Let’s not forget GE and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt and his fetish to make money off the carbon circus. I don’t think we’ll see MSNBC / NBC run with this story which is a story in itself if we had any real journalists out there…
AGWgate is now in play…
Farmers are going to have to grow less crop otherwise pay for more carbon credits. Makes me wonder how they will pay for their land and labourers.
Reminds me of a joke Ronald Reagan once told.
The commissar of the Soviet Union went out to a state collective farm and grabbed the first worker he came to. He said “How are the crops?”
The worker responded “Oh the crops have never been better! Just wonderful”
“How are the potatoes?” the commissar demanded to know.
“Oh comrade commissar, if we could put the potatoes in one pile they would reach the foot of God!”
The commissar’s face became serious, “Comrade, you should know that in the Soviet Union there is no God!”
The worker was very relieved to hear this and replied “Well that’s alright then because there are no potatoes!”
Chris Schoneveld (12:50:32) :
“Lucky him that they did, better to be censored than to be shown wrong”
I cannot imagine that you seriously condone censorship for every occasion that someone errs. Please don’t make me doubt your sense of morality.
This has nothing to do with morality. If the EPA had done their homework and dismissed Carlin’s report on its lack of merit we would hardly have this discussion here. Because it was censured instead, it attracted [well-deserved] attention, not because of its scientific merit, but because of its political merit. So, Carlin is better off [for him] censured because of politics than dismissed because of wrong science.
“Wade (05:05:19) :
Someone needs to post this on WikiLeaks.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/”
That can be you Wade.
Francis:
The areas with the poorest surface coverage are also the areas where GISS and UAH diverge the most. Coincidence or estimate?
On CNET
“E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
You can send this WUWT update to the story to the author of the column at CNET to this email :
declan@well.com
Ron de Haan (04:57:33) : All those visiting WUWT know what’s really going on. For this I am extremely grateful.
I’m glad this web site exists too!
Francis (12:51:58)
If you don’t like 1998, because of the effect of the high starting point, why don’t you check out Lucia’s blog, where she compares trends with 2000 and 2001 starting points, for GISS, HADCRUT, and NOAA. All show either slightly negative or slightly positive trends, all well below the model predictions. Personally, I find Lucia’s approach to be much less adversarial than Tamino’s.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadley-may-anomaly-rose-0002c-from-april/
I just sent this WUWT story and link to Breitbart. It is a very simple form. Please contact Breitbart also with this story :
http://www.breitbart.com/contact.php
Leif, Pamela……
You guys are scientists that don’t have to be in a hurry, but this defence of Carlin’s flawed document has already been raised by several. One thing that seems to be wrong with much thinking by scientists in this unfamiliar world of science and policy is exemplified by your and others criticisms on this topic . The point of this whole thing is that everyone in the upper heirarchy of the EPA had already made up his/her minds anyway. You should be outraged that your government would ask for your comments before a certain date and then learn that the di was already cast at least 3 months before you sent your comments. This gentleman Carlin deserves your utmost respect. Do you think he has been handed resources to underake a detailed review and critique to evaluate all that might have a bearing on the current state of the state of climate science. No he was under seige but still had the courage to try to frame some discussion of what appeared to be a foregone conclusion and apparently at great personal risk for your beneifit. In his own words he apologizes for the poor aspects of his paper. Indeed, its easy for politicians to buffalo most scientists by giving out a few crumbs to argue about so that they don’t go after the whole loaf. Shame on you.
Leif Svalgaard (13:11:31) :
“This has nothing to do with morality. If the EPA had done their homework and dismissed Carlin’s report on its lack of merit we would hardly have this discussion here. Because it was censured instead, it attracted [well-deserved] attention, not because of its scientific merit, but because of its political merit. So, Carlin is better off [for him] censured because of politics than dismissed because of wrong science.”
Leif, perhaps it’s just my misinterpretation, but you seem to be willing to grant that the dismissal of Carlin’s report on scientific grounds is likely, because of the shortcoming you identified. I think it much more probable the Carlin is correct on certain issues and not on others. Even if some of his points are correct, he will have made a positive contribution.
Chris Schoneveld (10:35:18) :
Ron de Haan (04:57:33) :
“We were doing pretty well until Government screwed up our financial system”
“We can very well do without the “Change” introduced by a President who falsifies science and bends the rules”
You mean the previous president and government was more true to science (what a joke!) and the financial system was all nice and dandy under Bush and the banks are not the primary culprits for the financial crisis? Are you kidding? Please Ron, go to another blog to vent your reactionary political views.
Chris Schoneveld (10:35:18) :
No Chris,
You have to look further back than the Bush Administration.
The bomb under our financial system was laid under the Clinton Administration.
The Bush Administration has made several significant efforts to address the problems but was blocked by the Democrats. There are still video’s available at youtube about the hearings, so you can see for yourself. Type Bush Fanny May Freddy Mack and you get the entire story.
I certainly will not go to another blog since WUWT is my home blog.
“Steven Hill (06:04:47) :
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”
Let’s not forget GE and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt and his fetish to make money off the carbon circus. I don’t think we’ll see MSNBC / NBC run with this story which is a story in itself if we had any real journalists out there…
AGWgate is now in play…
I fired Norton and Symantec today, the bill was due next week, bad timing for them. yes, GE, I sold my stock and I am very aware of Jeffrey Immelt. The whole situations reminds me of the propaganda used during WWII. lies are flying all around the place.
Gary Pearse (14:07:14) :
This gentleman Carlin deserves your utmost respect.
And he has it. He was lucky that the EPA did not dismiss his report on its lack of merit, but on political grounds, so he has a reason to denounce the EPA, which they deserve.
D Johnson (14:11:04) :
I think it much more probable the Carlin is correct on certain issues and not on others. Even if some of his points are correct, he will have made a positive contribution.
The contribution is wholly on political grounds, and just barely outweighs the harm done by poor science [even if as you say some of the points are correct].
“Don E (10:06:34) : There are continual references to the “San Francisco Examiner.” I can’t find Tom Fuller in the SF Examiner I read here in San Francisco”
It’s not the hard copy paper.
It’s the web site.
policyguy (09:15:01) :
Tom Fuller
There is also the book, “Air Con”, which is highly recommended by Bob Carter.
It is reviewed in the video :
Instead of dissecting this story and splitting hairs four ways, as I see happening in some comments, let’s get with it and inform news agencies, like Drudge, about it.
Let’s get something accomplished.
“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.”
let me see if i understand this.
the author is acknowledging substantive errors in his document, but he expected it to be treated as though it did NOT have substantive errors, because he was in too much of a hurry… to know what he was talking about.
and the decision not to forward what the author himself freely, openly admits is an erroneous document is supposed to be some kind of scandal.
is it possible to be smart and fast? yes. every day, in every industry, competent, non-partisan people are fast and accurate in mind-boggling ways.
was carlin fast and accurate? no. he says he wasn’t because he says it’s impossible. what’s his proof? the fact that he did a bad job.
boy you know i’d love to live in a world where everything i did was rated based on what *i* thought of it. life would be easier and i wouldn’t have had to quit a really good class i was just in because i wasn’t up to it. i could have had the teacher fired! and taught the class myself!
but no one would have learned anything.
Once again the material appearing here leaves me with the strong impression that the skeptics community needs and owes itself a skeptics climate science wiki, written and edited by all interested and proven skeptics/realists. This would be an immaculately sourced resource that Carlin could have simply copied wholesale.
I am very sure that the community reading WUWT is capable of this. I am also very sure that the community reading WUWT is capable of enjoying doing this, and drawing in experts like Plimer, Christy, Lindzen, etc as appropriate. But though I can “see” this potential and need, I’m not in a strong enough position to do much more than speak up for this project. Can’t I convince enough of you here, though, to help start it?
Monckton this month has written a “Talking Points” piece which addresses many of the most common lines of AGW dismissal of climate realists, such as we all encounter all the time. This piece could be a seed-start of a more complete FAQ – but it needs the references which I am certain Monckton knows correctly and could give.
Mickey Langan (10:22:34) : Has denier ever been used in any context other than Holocaust denial? Do AGW proponents think this is even close to semantically appropriate? If it was appropriate, they could easily answer: http://thereisnoevidence.com/. But they cannot.
Behind this brilliant one-page statement by Dr David Evans (who did a U-turn after six years of promoting AGW) lies an 18-page brilliant pdf There Is No Evidence. Like Joanne Nova (short) and Ian Plimer (long) he hits the nail on the head, again and again, simply, directly, very understandably, and with the necessary science. And with the references spelled out fully, it could, again, be the seed for a general skeptics’ statement that is acceptable to all and meets all the AGW “answers to skeptics”. If uploaded in wiki format, with editing (and discussion) open to skeptics, it could be improved and edited in response to RC criticism as well as to criticism from WUWT / CA / etc – (as did Craig Loehle in his study of MWP studies) to the point where even RC denialist activities could not dent it.
Let’s get something accomplished.
President Obama has already this weekend started working on Senators to get them to pass Waxman-Markey. He is not even giving this a rest on the weekend. The science for global warming is pathetic. But that isn’t stopping anyone on that side of the issue from pushing this unbelievable tax raise through.
If anyone wants to point out flaws in science I would ask that you focus on the bad science of global warming and not on the understandable mistakes in a hastily prepared report.
The flaws in the criticism are less than the published report. The criticism of the actual report is simply pointing out more, newer data exists which contradicts the conclusions of the EPA report, as one of many examples, I refer you to the friggin’ TEMPERATURE plots.
It’s frustrating to read posts here which discuss the FLAWS in the hastily prepared criticism when it’s apparent that the criticisms are primarily valid.