Congratulations to Alan Carlin on vindication

While the GAO issues a report today saying that the US Historical Climatological Monitoring Network has real tangible problems (as I have been saying for years) the Inspector General just released a report this week saying that EPA rushed their CO2 endangerment finding, skipping annoying steps like doing proper review. The lone man holding up his hand at the EPA saying “wait a minute” was Alan Carlin, who was excoriated for doing so.

From Powerline Blog:

Here’s a refresher: in 2009, when the EPA announced its “endangerment” finding to justify its planned regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran EPA employee who ran the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, produced a 98-page critique of the climate science the EPA used in its finding.  Carlin’s report concluded, “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by the EPA.”

You can guess what happened next.  The Obama Administration, the one supposedly dedicated to transparency and “restoring science” in public policy making, squashed Carlin’s report and told him to cease and desist any further analysis on climate change issues.  Carlin’s supervisor (a political appointee) emailed his: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.  No papers, no research, etc.”  Shortly after this episode Carlin left EPA.  (By the way, Carlin was the chairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the Sierra Club in California at one time, and helped with the Sierra Club’s campaign to stop two dam projects back in the 1960s.  In other words, he’s no right-wing ideologue, as the smears of the climate campaigners would have you think.)

This story is relevant again this week not simply for the obvious hypocrisy and double standard (insert the old joke about liberals and double-standards here), but because the issue of the EPA’s climate science has resurfaced in the form of an EPA inspector general’s report that essentially says that Carlin was right about the EPA’s shoddy scientific review.  Here’s the New York Times account from Wednesday:

In a report with wide-reaching political implications, U.S. EPA’s inspector general has found that the scientific assessment backing U.S. EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous did not go through sufficient peer review for a document of its importance. . .

According to the IG report, EPA failed to follow the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review procedures for a “highly influential scientific assessment,” which is defined as an assessment that could have an impact of more than $500 million in one year and is “novel, controversial, or precedent setting.”

In particular, the document was reviewed by a 12-member panel that included an EPA employee, violating rules on neutrality. EPA also did not make the review results public, as required, or certify whether it complied with internal or OMB requirements.

In a statement, IG Arthur Elkins Jr. emphasized that his office “did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used to support the endangerment finding.”

“While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA’s finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all required steps for a highly influential scientific assessment,” he said.

Roger Pielke Jr. observes how the climate campaigners are all circling the wagons, saying “move along, nothing to see here,” and noting that “I’d speculate that these observers would have had different reactions had this report been requested by Henry Waxman in 2006 about the last administration’s EPA. . .   during the Bush Administration concern about processes to ensure scientific integrity were all the rage. At that time it was generally understood that process matters, not simply because it helps to improve the quality of scientific assessments, but also because it helps to establish their legitimacy in the political process.  One sneers at process at some risk.”

More at Powerline Blog

=============================================================

I’m proud to say that Alan used materials from WUWT in his report, and that he has been vindicated for standing up to the sloppy rush job.

Thank you Mr. Carlin, for having integrity where others did not.

UPDATE: Climatologist Pat Michaels sums up the whole affair pretty well at Forbes: The EPA’s Endangerment Finding Is Very Endangered

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Richard Telford

“used materials from WUWT in his report”
Yes, it rather showed.
REPLY: And yet, he was right and you’re demonstrating again that you are just an angry troll, contributing nothing but snark here. -Anthony

Andrew

In Australia at the moment, The impression I am getting as compared to a year or two ago is that the subject is practically dead. No one is interested and there will be no tax as I think Gillard and even the greens realize there is no AGW. This story will probably nail it.

Don’t forget, about a year later, Babs Boxer and Lisa Jackson both testified that even though the endangerment finding said it used the CRU/IPCC “Gold standard,” they really relied on NASA data–which NASA had admitted days earlier was so bad it had substituted the CRU numbers.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/boxer-jackson-admit-epas-co2-finding-based-on-fail/

This surely shows that Carlin is vindicated and it confirms that WUWT is having some impact on getting “it” right, “it” being both the science and the politics.
Let’s hope Carlin is getting proper attention on this and any damage he may have experienced is corrected.

Fred Allen

It’s good to see these actions bringing the warmists to account. They’ve had free rein for too long. Whether it be the warmists or the skeptics, most use good science and come to different conclusions. That’s fine. It’s the messages that get politicized and the data and conclusions that are fudged for idealogical reasons that give all climatologists a bad rap. I support some constraints on the EPA to get things right.

Tom

Andrew Andrew Andrew… of course they know there is no AGW and the existence of it or not has absolutely nothing to do with their plans to tax tax tax and to take more power. When it is quietest is when you need to fear most because you will never convert these people with facts.
from the co-chair of IPPC…
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.—Ottmar Edenhoffer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

mkurbo

Congrats to Mr. Carlin ! I remember printing his study/report out and reading it in its jaw dropping (at the time) entirety. Ahead of his time in calling the EPA out…

RossP

Richard Telford –I suppose if they used material from Real Climate it would have been OK.

Gary Hladik

The people who contributed to the Inspector General’s report better pray that President Zero is defeated in 2012, or look for new jobs.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

The whole idea of “due process when it suits us” around CAGW and CO2 is insult using a broad brush. And for the same people to launch into AdHom tirades when confronted with the double standard (and the crappy science) is basically applying a second coat of tar. Mr. Carlin is old-school, and brave enough to stand behind his principles. Pretty funny that he got smeared as right-wing. Well, not so funny, but certainly illustrative of the apparent eschewing of data and facts by those with the tar bucket.

Yes, Carlin has been right all along. You can read him at http://www.carlineconomics.com

pat

Yes. That was under the direction of the execrable Carol Browner. A lawyer that pretended to be a scientist. Perhaps one of the dumbest, but perhaps the most vicious, to serve in modern times. A true scientific dolt, she demonstrated amply that ignorance and incomprehension was no bar to being in our government.

Frank K.

Folks, this is the end game of CAGW “science” – control of our lives through onerous regulations such as those proposed by the EPA. And, of course, there’s the BILLIONS of dollars in climate ca$h to spread around…

Mark

If a senior manager in the private sector was shown to have manipulated a design review process (in an FDA regulated environment) during an audit the senior manager might end up with his office taped shut and his files removed. At a minimum the auditors would be spending a lot of time talking to the senior manager and the members of the design review team……………

Jeff

Could it be possible to hope that the called for hearings and investigation will disclose the whitewash that was applied to the most incredulous claims the IPCC has made?
I have read quotes where Senator Inhofe has painted a target on few peoples backs that have gone out of their way to try and humiliate him by consensus. Is this the opening he has been looking for to finally pull the trigger?
Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said “There is nothing here that undermines the EPA’s way forward.”
Guess I could be wrong I am pretty sure that says “Move along nothing here to see.”

Kev-in-Uk

Those that build little empires within government or other such controlling/regulatory bodies under the auspices of government, need to be reminded – constantly – that they are PUBLIC servants and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when they are shown to FAIL the public. There is no excuse – when a doctor behaves badly, they are struck off – these people should lose their jobs and pensions, etc, etc – for any proven disingenious behaviour. It might make them think twice before putting themselves and their dictatorial tendencies first!

cbone

I couldn’t help but notice at least half a dozen attempts to bolster the “science” in the NYT article. Total spin job from the NYT on this one.

Curiousgeorge

It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. The fat lady in this is the UNFCCC. See the story here:
U.N. Seeks to Raise ‘Level of Ambition’ in World Climate Regulations
The 2009 Copenhagen climate summit may have failed, but its objectives, and the United Nations’ determination to realize them, are very much alive.
Global airline carbon taxes, taxes on shipping, sweeping changes in land use, and an even bigger squeeze on world-wide greenhouse emissions—including tougher U.S. emissions limits and enforcement —have been under intense discussion at a series of discreet international “workshop” meetings fostered by the U.N. in the past six months.
The gatherings aim at raising the stakes in the “climate change” agenda, while keeping new actions as much as possible under the cloak of purely domestic activities for each nation involved.
Documents summarizing the workshop proceedings will be presented to yet another U.N. gathering in Panama starting October 1, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The summary documents make clear that the governments of many Western developed countries—including the U.S.— are still hoping to increase the “level of ambition” of commitments they made in the wake of the failed Copenhagen climate summit to undertake drastic reductions in their carbon dioxide emissions to combat “climate change,” even without a global treaty to carve them in stone.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/30/un-seeks-to-raise-stakes-in-world-climate-regulations/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZThMqBnU

Paul

The only thing that shocks me about this affair is that Carlin was vindicated!

kwinterkorn

Minor word usage point: “quashed”, rather than “squashed”, is the more accurate word when used in a phrase meaning “suppressing” a report, document, or such. For example, lawyers use the term in phrases like: “He sought to quash the subpoena..”
Sorry to be tedious, just a pet peeve of mine. Quash this, if you please.
KW

mpaul

Its interesting — the EPA has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting people for rules violations. For example, the EPA filed *criminal* charges (yes, criminal charges) against San Diego Gas and Electric Company for it’s alleged failure to follow rules governing the removal of asbestos:

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) sold a decommissioned natural gas storage facility to a real estate developer. As part of the transaction SDG&E removed all of its equipment from the site, including miles of underground pipes covered with multi-layered coating, one of which layers contained asbestos. Licensed asbestos abatement contractors and experts retained by SDG&E concluded that the coating material was not subject to federal regulation. Local, state and federal government inspectors were on site more than 20 times during the course of the removal operations. Nevertheless, the federal government criminally charged SDG&E and three individual defendants with violating federal regulations.

Yet here we have a case where the EPA failed to follow federal regulations, resulting in a potential for massive damage to the economy, and the OIG response is to recommend that the EPA “revise its Peer Review Handbook”?? When a private citizen unintentionally runs afoul of the complex EPA rules they are prosecuted as criminals whereas when the EPA violates the law they are told to update their manuals??

Iren

Andrew says:
September 30, 2011 at 2:19 pm
In Australia at the moment, The impression I am getting as compared to a year or two ago is that the subject is practically dead. No one is interested and there will be no tax as I think Gillard and even the greens realize there is no AGW. This story will probably nail it.

Unfortunately, I agree with Tom (2:39pm). They are doing everything possible to stiffle debate and keep this out of the news and will then ram it through parliament in mid-October and treat it like a fait accompli. If you think otherwise then you’re dreaming. My dream was that Gillard might be tossed out before then it this is looking less and less likely. Labor will happily let her go her merry way and then try to blame her for all the disasters wreaked. She keeps talking about the national interest but she doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the concept. Its all about personal power and WINNING.
As for Alan Carlin, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for him. As so many others, he’s been attacked and has suffered for simply telling the truth. That seems to be the greatest crime at the moment. Just look at Andrew Bolt.

Reflecting on Skeptical Science’s misuse of language, I mused, once again, how nice it would be to have a wiki that deconstructs each of SkeSci’s unmerited debunks of climate skeptics’ issues.
But here’s a smaller project that might be even better able to help the re-establishment of integrity. How nice it would be to have our own “Not-an-IPCC-rogue gallery”, matching each of SkeSci’s named individuals and perhaps extending to RealClimate “rogues gallery” etc. Why was Don Easterbrook tarred? Because of the damning evidence of his ice core record. Why were Soon and Baliunas tarred? Because of the damning evidence of their paper – which still needs rehabilitating here IMHO. Why is Monckton tarred? Because of the damning evidence of his use of IPCC maths against itself. Why was Tim Ball’s bio deleted from Wikipedia? Because of the damning evidence of his career. It would be such a nice piece of work, if Alan Carlin and lots more who have paid the price, could have accessible biographies, all together, focussing particularly on why they were tarred – what warmists wanted to suppress – and what their crucial evidence actually says.
Project, anyone?

Doug in Seattle

Lisa Jackson in unmoved by the IG report. That is not a surprise, nor should it be based on her actions over the last 20 years in support of the AGW crusade.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Democrats will lose the White House in 2012. If that indeed comes to pass then I have a bit of advice to give the new management.
Remove the cancer that allowed AGW to become the monster it is today within the US government. Bush did not shake up the government science technocracy or the federal science funding bureaucracy when he took over after Clinton in 2001. Gore had spent eight years replacing high and mid level scientists and bureaucrats within the government and NAS with AGW believers. These folks then spent the next eight years undermining Bush’s policies. This is also how Obama was able to get a running start beginning in 2009.

Theo Goodwin

I will be the first to mention Lisa Jackson. She has to go. She accepted work that was not up to standards, and clearly not up to standards as one of her employees, Alan Carlin, had clearly reported, and used it to justify one of the most far-reaching and expensive regulatory regimes in the history of the USA. Senator Inhofe, call for her resignation please. Call for an investigation of the entire matter, please. Have Alan Carlin as your first witness.

LUCY~such a juicy suggestion for a project!
Here’s my second for a discussion thread devoted to the who, what, when and hows!!
This is a much merited project. Perhaps the thread could suss out the details. Supposing that Watts wants to defer to others initiative with the project, Stephen Malloy may be a worthy custodian (given his affiliation with CEI.org and its mission to correct environmental mis-information). Alternatively and ore heretically — and because it dovetails with his “hit and run” site exposes by deepening them and adding much reference background — perhaps Steve Goddard would be game?

Just wait for the first court case where the judge strikes down the “Endangerment Finding”

Neil

Andrew,
Don’t for a minute think that AGW is dead here in Australia. We are dead-against the carbon tax for sure, but that became the lightning rod for debate, not AGW. There’s enough idiots on both sides of politics that accept without question the reality of AGW, so the defeat or deferment of the Carbon Tax won’t stop more “Eco-friendly” regulations from coming down the tube.
With the Labor Party hell-bent on it’s own distruction, the worst-case scenario is coming true: the rise of the people & progress hating Greens.
The Carbon Tax may not come to pass, but this is really only the opening salvo.

Carlin was trying to protect the EPA from the consequences of a politically-driven decision on science it didn’t understand. So they trashed him.
He is a really good guy. He was trying to do the right thing. I talked to him maybe three times over the telephone while I was writing for Examiner.com.
They trashed a really good human being. I won’t forget that.

Theo Goodwin

Here is a quotation from the New York Times article cited above:
‘”The key difference here was that they didn’t create new science,” said Francesca Grifo, a scientist who heads the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “And typically, when you call something a highly influential scientific assessment, you actually added some other data, or used grey literature, or did something that hadn’t already been fully reviewed.”‘
You really have to give Francesca credit for honesty. Who would have known that assessments “added some other data, or used grey literature?” So, now we know that it is policy at the UCS to add grey literature as needed to assessments. We have this from the Head of the Scientific Integrity Program of the UCS itself.
Somehow, though, I don’t think Francesca will be employed by UCS after this NYT article gets around.

One person I sought out at the ICCC in Washington in July was Alan Carlin. I thanked him for upholding the scientific method, the theme of the conference.
Nice guy.

u.k.(us)

Richard Telford says:
September 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“used materials from WUWT in his report”
Yes, it rather showed.
===============
Well……….
Don’t hold back.
Thrall us with your acumen.

Iren says:
September 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
They are doing everything possible to stiffle debate and keep this out of the news and will then ram it through parliament in mid-October and treat it like a fait accompli. If you think otherwise then you’re dreaming. My dream was that Gillard might be tossed out before then it this is looking less and less likely.
Yep, she was installed for a reason and she won’t give up until she achieves what she was told to do. No matter the damage to herself, her party, or the country. Like somebody said before, when it is at its most quiet, it is at its most dangerous.

HankH

My congratulations to Alan Carlin for having the fortitude to stand up to a roughshod agency gone wild in their overreach and bypass of congress.
What more is there to understand about how the EPA works when the President can threaten to enact draconian measures through the EPA if Congress didn’t pass Cap and Trade? In the face of such blatant use of the EPA as a bullwhip, did anyone really think the EPA wouldn’t rig the findings on CO2?
For anyone who truly believes “move along there’s nothing to see”, I’ve got some underwater real estate lots in Florida I’d be willing to let go for an exceptional price. Buy today before the price goes down!

starzmom

My thanks again to Alan Carlin. i am very glad he is being vindicated. EPA needs to be seriously reined in. Maybe, just maybe, this is the start.

Andrew Harding

Richard Telford says:
September 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“used materials from WUWT in his report”
“Yes, it rather showed.”
And, what is your problem?
I would accept anyone using “materials” from any source if the information obtained contributed to a logical argument. Proper science does not, and should not, condemn facts because the researcher happens to disagree with the ethos of the source of the information.
To give an example, I disagree that man-made CO2 is currently causing global warming, but I do agree that CO2, whether man-made or not, will cause global warming if present in significantly larger amounts.
I have yet to hear any AGW believer state the above MAY be true, their problem with basic science, not mine!

NZ Willy

The New York Times tells lies again when it states that “highly influential scientific assessment” is defined as an assessment that could have an impact of more than $500 million in one year and is “novel, controversial, or precedent setting.” — after giving this false definition, the rest of its article is given over to Warmist scientists (Trenberth, even) who say it’s all settled science, so the criterion is not met. However, the Inspector General’s report actually states:
“A highly influential scientific assessment is a scientific assessment that:
— Could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year on either the public or private sector, or
— Is novel, controversial, or precedent setting, or has significant interagency interest”
Note the “OR” between the two conditions, ie, either is enough. Whereas the NYT states it as “AND”, ie, both required, and then writes the entire 2nd half of their article to say that since the 2nd condition is “settled science”, therefore the IG is wrong. NYT lies again, what do you expect.

Ask why is it so?

Tom, Irene and TWE, you’re right. It’s not about AGW anymore, its about Gillard doing anything to stay in power and if that means doing what the Greens and the Independents want she’ll do it. As Irene said the Carbon Tax will be passed regardless because remember ‘the science is settled’ and the Government has closed the book on it. In the debate the Government has blocked all attempts to introduce scientific evidence against AGW. Alan Carlin’s story is great for the US but it will have no impact on us. When the next election comes I hope Australians don’t forget the lie. ‘”There will be NO Carbon Tax under a Government I lead” Julia Gillard’

KenB

Thanks for this report Anthony, and also Anthony Valencia for posting the link to Alan Carlin’s site. I hadn’t realized the connection between Alan and the EPA and though I understood the politicization that was going on with the US EPA. I wasn’t aware of Alan’s prior report questioning the science that underpinned that politicization. As I read through Alan Carlin’s site I came across his report on the specific propaganda distributed by government agencies and the National Parks and Gardens, where quite clearly out and out propaganda is being put to the public in furtherance of the Climate warming scam.
This report connected a few dots for this Australian, as the same process has been used here, particularly with the C.S.I.R.O. in the release of its notorious propaganda claim that we had seen the end of “normal” rainfall and Australia faced a very dry sparse rainfall in the future due to the effects of global warming, in contrast to the flooding rains we actually got as part of a normal cyclical repeat of past weather patterns.
I would say to Iren, Neil, and TWE. Its worth re-reading Alan Carlin’s writing and comparing that with the corruption and spin we have experienced here, with stacking of the EPA and CSIRO, (ABC) with green environmentalist’s and left wing idealists heading up key positions and pushing their agenda i.e. hell bent on destruction of the Australian economy. It is a vicious debate here, with the government propping up the worst science and belittling any scientist who dares to speak out against either the Carbon Tax or the idea of CAGW.
At the same time as the Gillard Government destroys and ignores reputable scientists smeared with the D word they, reward and praise those who comply with their approved climate propaganda, and have the temerity to claim they are “defending science” from those awful people who dare to say or present an apposing view.
I too detect a change in the ordinary Australian voter as they are seeing this evolve before their eyes, and they ask WHY! Not only that, but the absolute disgust that comes from the realization of the con trick that has been perpetrated in spinning this agenda.
All praise to the scientists and brave souls who have been motivated to stand up and speak out on the issue in Australia. Its not over, but I think good sense and good science with win through the spin.

Claude Harvey

“Truth-tellers” are among the most reviled people walking the face of the earth. Mr. Carlin deserves a special place in the “Don Quixote Hall of Fame”.

eyesonu

mpaul says:
September 30, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Its interesting — the EPA has a reputation for aggressively prosecuting people for rules violations. For example, the EPA filed *criminal* charges (yes, criminal charges) against San Diego Gas and Electric Company for it’s alleged failure to follow rules governing the removal of asbestos:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) sold a decommissioned natural gas storage facility to a real estate developer. As part of the transaction SDG&E removed all of its equipment from the site, including miles of underground pipes covered with multi-layered coating, one of which layers contained asbestos. Licensed asbestos abatement contractors and experts retained by SDG&E concluded that the coating material was not subject to federal regulation. Local, state and federal government inspectors were on site more than 20 times during the course of the removal operations. Nevertheless, the federal government criminally charged SDG&E and three individual defendants with violating federal regulations.
Yet here we have a case where the EPA failed to follow federal regulations, resulting in a potential for massive damage to the economy, and the OIG response is to recommend that the EPA “revise its Peer Review Handbook”?? When a private citizen unintentionally runs afoul of the complex EPA rules they are prosecuted as criminals whereas when the EPA violates the law they are told to update their manuals??
—————
Your point is well taken. Any govt. employee/organization entrusted with the power granted MUST be held accountable at the same standards/scope as they wield. Kind of like a poker game, if you want to play a hand be prepared to win or lose at the same stakes. Unfortunately that’s not the case now.
Mr. Watts, thank you for all you do in bringing the ‘other side’ to us. You are performing a valuable service to society and are under accredited for your contribution. I applaud you.

tokyoboy

And Congratulations to Anthony on the 90 Million views.

Streetcred

Iren says:
September 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
==========================
I’m with you Iren … what is happening in our country is a travesty. Our democratic rights are being subverted by an illegitimate government under the influence of the socialist left. The ramblings of one Prof. Robert Mann wrt the right to publish an opinion are grossly offensive to our democratic nation.

Bernie McCune

Read the EPA IG Report. There are many arguments about scientific issues that are actually political ones. Mainly that the climate change the IPCC is talking about is going to be so serious that many of us will die. That is a real scientific stretch but it is the “political” story (my spin but true) that EPA and many others US government entities are touting in this report (NRC another believer).
Also in the timeline on page 41 is an interesting entry:
04/02/07
Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under CAA, and that EPA must determine whether greenhouse gases emitted from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
Interesting that a non-scientific government court decided to make a serious scientific pronouncement that basically indicates that CO2 (plant food – high concentrations found in the lungs of all mammals) and H2O (obvious basis for all life) are pollutants. As I understand it the EPA mandates on Air Quality health risks are limited to respiratory pollutants such as particulates and toxic gases. Why did the Supreme Court allow the EPA to expand the original law into this area? I think the Congress should clarify this law. Fat chance of this Congress doing anything.
The IG Report seems to generally say that procedural rules had been broken but that in the end many of the EPA conclusions of the Endangerment Finding are supported. The issue of the Climategate emails is of little consequence because HadCRU temperature data seem to be accurate. All the issues, brought up by the emails, of “contaminating” some of the IPCC results seem to be ignored. Heavy use of IPCC findings got EPA a hand slap to the effect that more independent sources should have also been used. But there are numerous rebuttals in the report that basically say “a number of US Government organizations have accepted the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and it has been extensively peer reviewed so EPA can base much of our scientific conclusions on the IPCC results”.
In many ways the details of this report are depressing and I wonder how Senator Inhofe will take it.

Theo Goodwin

My hat is off to Alan Carlin for his professionalism, integrity, and willingness to suffer for what is right. I am humbled by his example.

Paul W

Another avenue of attack by green(/red) interests that is currently moving along under the radar is the Law of the Sea Treaty. It has extensive provisions addressing pollutants, presumably including CO2, carried to the sea by the atmosphere from marine, airborne, coastal and inland sources. I expect it to be brought before the Senate for ratification later this year or the next while it still has a snowball’s chance of passage.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

kwinterkorn says:
September 30, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Minor word usage point: “quashed”, rather than “squashed”, is the more accurate word when used in a phrase meaning “suppressing” a report, document, or such. For example, lawyers use the term in phrases like: “He sought to quash the subpoena..”
Sorry to be tedious, just a pet peeve of mine. Quash this, if you please.
KW

Given the Thermystics propensity for mangling language, I for one agree with your pet peeve, but perhaps we could let the beef about ‘squashed’ slither by…seeing how many in here likely see “squashing” as a more potent outcome.

Steve C

Another vote for Lucy Skywalker’s project – much needed! It could go in, or next to, Anthony’s reference pages, and would be a very useful addition. It might be doubly useful to have also a parallel list, defined approximately by Prof. Muller’s observation that “I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore”.

D. W. Schnare

One correction, Anthony. Alan’s boss, who emailed him to cease and desist, a fellow by the name of Al Mcgartland, is a career employee, not a political appointee. He still has his job.

Paul

Of course, many of our thoughts went immediately to Alan Carlin upon learning of this most sought after inquiry into the EPA regarding the Administration’s agenda driven manipulated CO2 “global warming/climate change” findings. The principled actions of people such as Carlin play a critical role in confronting assaults on integrity but often go unheralded. Here’s to Carlin, Anthony and all the WUWT participants. CAGW actions to date have set back progress way too much already – ongoing skepticism must continue to accompany dogged investigations increasing our knowledge and understanding of climate, etc. I hope we can survive this era of political science.