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
@ur momisugly mark harrigan
First, apology accepted.
Second, regarding the paragraph I “fixed” – the post of yours from which it came did not provide any reference or link and sure sounds like a post from “just another unqualified blogger who wishes to deny science”. (your words) You should not be surprised that a post by such a person might be challenged, or, in my case, paraphrased in the manner I did. My point – each of us here has arrived at their opinion regarding “CAGW by CO2”. Mine and yours do not agree.
However, you ask So – what should the intelligent, open minded (but non-qualified and certainly non-expert) person do?
I would suggest you step back and take a breath and then ponder these:
If CAGW by CO2 is true, why do many of its supporters feel the need to provide misleading information and misrepresent science?
Before you tune out that question, you can start with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” which has many misleading statements and misrepresentations of science. While Gore may be like you and I – “another unqualified” person – he claims his information was from real climate scientists.
Then consider the UN’s IPCC reports – while they purport to be a “gold standard” of global climate science, why are so many of its conclusions based on non-peer reviewed, activist assertions?
You seem to like John Cooks site. If you take the time you’ll find that every one of his attributions to “skeptics” has been discussed elsewhere and his conclusions are either wrong, misleading, or a misrepresentation. WUWT has a number of “skeptical” and “lukewarmer” sites you can visit. If you actually have an open mind, they may at least make you start questioning what you think is the truth.
I’m not going to say that everything in this site:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
is accurate, but I will say that the journey of his described quest to “get it right” is probably one that many skeptics have taken. You’ll discover, as he did, that those who you thought were experts on climate science haven’t been exactly honest with you.
You’ve taken at least one step on that journey by reading and posting here on WUWT.
To All:
I doubt if Mark Harrigan will do as I suggest, but I’ve posted it in case some other reader may find something here that makes them go “Hmmm…”.
@ur momisugly Mark
Go here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
Note that 3 of th 4 major reporting agencies show we have not been as warm as we were in 1998.
Please don’t state bullshit. There’s been no warming after 1998 and the AGW promoters themselves are running around finding tenuous excuses for that.
Read below statements from ” It’s a travesty ” Trenberth about ” global warming on temporary hold ” nd claiming that the heat is hidden somewhere in the oceans and will resurface later
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20110919/216084_global-warming-deep-ocean-research-science.htm
Here’s Kaufmann et. al. stating that cooling happened due to Chinese coal usage
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
Here’s Jean-Paul Vernier at NASA blaming aerosols from volcanoes for lack of warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/18/new-nasa-paper-contradicts-kaufmann-et-al-saying-its-volcanoes-not-china-coal/
The AGW crowd are running like headless chicken to find some lame excuse for the lack of warming and these 3 contradictory claims have been expressed within the past few months.
So I suggest you take your uninformed trolling elsewhere. You have no clue of what you’re talking about.
One problem with the basic CAGW hypothesis that Alan recognized is the assumption that the observed long-term rise in atmospheric CO2 is 100% caused by anthropogenic emissions. This could only be possible if long-term natural source and sink rates did not change. The ice core proxie data shows that these natural rates change. I have been analyzing the reported CO2 and C13/c12 data and the results indicate that the anthropogenic contribution to the global background concentration has varied around 12% in the last 20 Years. It follows that the observed rise is mostly natural and any attempt to limit atmospheric concentrations by controlling emissions will have little success. The cost of controls are far greater than the 88% marginalize benefits.
mark harrigan says:
October 3, 2011 at 2:51 am
Well JPeden,
That’s a bold claim.
No, it’s a fact that CO2 = CAGW has not gotten even one relevant prediction right yet, as compared to the empirical record. For example, where is the Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot which was supposed to be the “fingerprint” of CO2 = AGW, or, as revised, now of “any” GW?
Or are you going to argue that, contrary to another of its official GCM “predictions” for the first decade of this century, since the “planet”/atmosphere has not warmed over at least the past 15 years now of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Climate Science got its GCM no-warming Hot Spot prediction right, because it also got its CO2 = CAGW prediction wrong?
As you can perhaps see, mark, ipcc Climate Science speaks in classical gibberish, the kind of “scientific” language which you “believe”, and according to which the actual empirical data turns out to be always “wrong” or defective according to the needs of its practice and “method” – which are obviously directed at goals other than truly scientific ones.
For example, that’s why Trenberth allows and spurs himself on to never stop looking for the as yet completely unfound “missing heat” which, and again contrary to the actual effects of this and the Holocene’s previous Warmer Periods, will allegedly kill us all once it’s finally found in enough quantities, unless we do something really stupid like effectively commit suicide or become enslaved, “before it’s too late!” and the Apocalypse takes us down…snif.
mark, what are your goals? Are you getting paid to repeat ipcc Climate Science’s “tenets” and liturgy here? If only for your own benefit, it’s time for you to come clean about how your own mind works.
mark harrigan says:October 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm
@ur momisugly Steve – great Steve – look forward to you publishing in the near future –
Not interested in publishing, was requested to over twenty years ago, seemed like a waste of time. What is empirically repeatable, and used tens of thousands of times a day, does not need a paper to stand on.
mark harrigan says:
October 3, 2011 at 2:51 am
Tell me JPeden – how is it that you are right and they are wrong?
Apart from the fact that ipcc Climate Science and the Boards of Scientific Organizations are wrong simply as judged by the failure of CO2 = CAGW’s relevant predictions, which essentially falsify the hypotheses involved – and regardless of anyone’s publishing record in “peer reviewed” journals, which were never put forth as establshing the “given truth” of that which was published, that is, never before the advent of “Climate Science”; and along with its independent failure to even demonstrate anything new in the climate as compared to the Null Hypothesis, in need of a CO2-driven mechanism, etc.; you’re also going to have to take up that particular matter above with the Chinese and Indians. And with the ipcc itself!
That is, where the rubber meets the road, India and China in fact demonstrate by their active construction of essentially as many coal-fired electricity plants as possible, that they consider the burning of fossil fuel to be necessary to the cure of their objective disease involving underdevelopment, instead of being the merely demonized cause of the ipcc’s completely disasterized CO2 = CAGW Apocalypse – itself allegedly constituting the “reason” entities and people like the ones you cite want us to return to the same condition which is now India’s and China’s disease!
And all the while the very people you revere and their acolytes here have not shown any evidence at all, as to decreasing their own “carbon footprints”, that they themselves even believe what they are saying!
Have you, mark? What have you done to significantly reduce your own carbon footprint. After all, it is your belief, not mine, that the Apocalypse is too near to not act! Although I’ll wager right now that you can’t match my record in regard to carbon footprints, which I’ve engineered simply out of concerns for efficiency and common sense.
But going back to the progenitor of all this blatantly Apocalyptic methodology and its actual goal, if the UN and its ipcc does in fact believe its own “science”, why did it exclude countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.7 billion people from having to follow its own alleged Kyoto Protocol cure to its own alleged disease disaster?
For those of you that may be interested, google “Mark Harrigan”+”climate” to get an idea from where he comes with his comments. You can do the same for any commentor that uses their real name, including me.
Fred H. Haynie says:
October 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm
For those of you that may be interested, google “Mark Harrigan”+”climate” to get an idea from where he comes with his comments.
Most excellent suggestion, Fred.
Got him:
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Mark_Harrigan
Whoa! Be afraid! Be very afraid!
🙂
My My – quite a forest of replies. It would appear I have touched a few nerves of those who seem uncommonly keen to counter my posts. What’s wrong folks? Too much of a challenge for your entrenched beliefs? I also note how “Angry” and “Grumpy” you all sound.
First – in relation to this thread. No one has successfully refuted my point that this entire IG/OMB/EPA issue has been trumped up Inhofe based on a falsehood. Regardless of your views on AGW the IG made no finding in relation to the science. So Carlin’s comments, Inhofe’s challenge and the media beat up surrounding it is based on a deliberately politicised misrepresentation. Surely that should give some of you pause?
As for the rest – well a post would be WAY too long to deal with them all.
But suffice it to say NOT ONE OF YOU has actually referenced any published science – just regurgitated blogosphere analysis.
You also demean http://www.skepticalscience.com/but it has won a prestigious science prize recognising its practice of good reporting on science always referring to the established literature. NONE of the other blogosphere sites you refer to can make that claim. Perhaps because they are rubbish unsupported by the actual science?
IF you don’t like though maybe look at http://www.ucsusa.org – a site run by real scientists (see below)
As I have said, the proper place for real debate about the science is not here. For any claims that any of you have made if you can’t substantiate it with a reference to either a properly published piece of science or a properly considered statement from a credentialed body of science then you are an unqualified blogger who is merely repeating myths. So it’s not worth responding. Either publish your unsupported conclusions yourself, or reference something credible. Blogosphere sites don’t count.
In particular for Steve and Fred? What a joke! – Steve claims he has no need to publish and Fred – despite years of trolling around on the blogosphere with his crackpot analysis can’t. Ever consider that is because what you are saying is complete rubbish? Get published or be silent.
Second – Was what I said REALLY that controversial? It only accords with the majority of climate scientists, climate science conclusions in the published literature and every single credible national science body. Namely that AGW is real, our burning of fossil fuels is the most likely cause, that it is a problem although there are uncertainties about forcing/feedbacks and hence how warm/how fast and associated downsides.
Those uncertainties are summarised quite well here http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/certainty-vs-uncertainty.html
Yes there are contrarians but very few of them are qualified climate scientists (Bob Carter for example is NOT and has published only one piece of recognised climate science and it has been refuted). Their positions are dealt with here
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/
I’ve even recognised that because of the benefits fossil fuels have offered that any mix of abatement/adaptation needs to be carefully managed. That’s not “alarmist”, it’s quite moderate and suitably precautionary based on the expert advice.
But you all seem to want to deny every single element of that and I’m accused of “having an agenda” (which by the way – is not an argument – I could just as easily challenge your agenda – and let’s face it there is an ENORMOUS set of fossil fuel based economic interests who have an agenda to deny AGW – are you really SO sure you are not being manipulated by them?)
Is the position you have all adopted really credible? Could the vast majority of climate scientists and science bodies have it SO completely wrong? (I notice that none of you have directly addressed that challenge as to why you are right and they, who are vastly more qualified than any of us, are so wrong).
Ask yourself, is that really a rational, sane conclusion?.
That they are all so deluded and the blogosphere (informed mostly by those with a peculiar conservative psychology and perhaps a fossil fuel agenda) full of non-experts and a few contrarian scientists really know the truth? Are you sure that you are not falling for a re-assuring lie rather than a confronting truth that might force us to change our ways somewhat?
Objective readers of this blog will, of course, draw their own conclusions 🙂
@ur momisugly JPEden – That’s a lot of contorted language, backed up by no substantiation that essentially shows you have no understanding of science.
Indeed your claims are really rather shrill and essentially recycling old myths that have been debunked time and time again. I challenged you to provide a specific piece of published science that made a specific claim that turned out to be false. You haven’t. Thus you are refuted.
The reality of consistent warming and the MYTH of cooling since 1998 is well dealt with on page 2 here http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-science-update-temperatures.pdf. As I have already noted you need to look at the VERY LEAST at 5 year moving averages over DECADES to really see the direction in which things are heading because climate change is a phenomenon that acts over decades. Therefore your claims on temperature are refuted.
I also notice you have still failed to explain why you are right and the world’s science bodies are all wrong. You have just restated your position without substance.
Given all the above, and that you can claim no published science nor reference any, you are either an ill-informed AGW denialist blogger or you have an agenda and hence can be ignored.
P.S. I’m alas, not being paid anything. are YOU??
@JohnWho – You also have not referenced a single piece of published science to sustain your claims. Just a whole load of rubbish attacking the IPCC with no evidence to back you.
Yes the IPCC did get some things wrong (two actually – they misspoke about a single glacier – when the vast majority ARE retreating, and they got it right about the Amazon rain forrests but mucked up their references)
That’s only a tiny percentage out of 1000’s of pages and many linked conclusions. If some gets 99% of what they say right and less than 1% wrong is that a basis for dismissing everything they say?
On that basis you are a complete fool since the link you found to a Mark harrigan isn’t me LOL (though he seems like a fine fellow albeit a bit obsessed with on-line role playing games – at least he’s not peddling misinformation like you). I live in Australia, studied at the University of Melbourne where I did my PhD.
“Got Him” you proudly pronounce?
Do you normally jump to conclusions without evidence so quickly?? Oh, yes, of course – you do.
By the way for the objective OPENMINDED readers without a predisposed mind set the issues with the IPCC report are dealt with very well here
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/attacks-on-the-ipcc.html
A site run by SCIENTISTS by the way – not by ideological bloggers.
So JohnWho? All very well for you to suggest other readers troll your blogosphere sites – I suggest they actually look at sites run by scientists (such as http://www.ucsusa.org/) or one of the many sites of credentialed scientific bodies (like here
Just like you go to REAL doctors to get your medical advice and not quacks who make unsubstantiated claims
@Steve ” Not interested in publishing, was requested to over twenty years ago, seemed like a waste of time. What is empirically repeatable, and used tens of thousands of times a day, does not need a paper to stand on” – with due respect what a load of rubbish. You will not subject your unsubstantiated findings to scrutiny by others and you cannot support your claim by showing others who have repeated it?? Then that is NOT science. . In other words your claims about temperature data have no substance or validity and can be ignored.
@ur momisuglyFred – Fred I can see you’ve been trolling ALL around the internet for more than four years trying to get someone to pay attention to your garbled presentation full of jargon and un-justified conclusions. Strangely enough – no one of credibility accepts what you are saying. in fact I couldn;t find anyone at all who does
You claim to have “retired early from EPA research” where you worked in the Atmospheric Sciences research Laboratory. Why I wonder? You appear to have been a Project Officer and not associated with any publication since 1990 – NONE of which were to do with climate science (they are all to do with impacts of atmosphere on metal and other surfaces). Project officers are not researchers per se but are responsible for the technical management of a project (in other words a form of support tech).
No one else in the scientific community agrees with your contention that anthropogenic contribution to CO@ur momisugly increase is only 12%
There’s a great link here that establishes it’s us http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ – a web site RUN BY CLIMATE scientists who actually reference reel published literature (lots of similar well references links at skeptical science too by the way but I know you prefer not to use that site despite it’s credentials).
But as a “former EPA scientist” why haven’t you published? Your failure to do so makes it clear you either don’t really believe what you say or, more likely, what you say won’t stand the scrutiny of peer review in a reputable journal.
Put up or shut up.
@Venter
None of your links go to actual published science papers either – just the uncredentialled blogosphere
I’ve dealt with your false claims about no warming since 1998 above – it’s just not true and shows you have no understanding of trends, data variability and moving averages. It’s the equivalent of picking the warmest day in winter and comparing it to the coolest day in summer (often about the same) and then claiming there is no difference in temperature between the two.
What a joke.
here’s the ACTUAL data from the NASA key indicators site http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Year Temp Moving 5 year Avg
1970 0.03
1971 -0.10
1972 0.00
1973 0.14
1974 -0.08 0.00
1975 -0.05 -0.02
1976 -0.16 -0.03
1977 0.12 -0.01
1978 0.01 -0.03
1979 0.08 0.00
1980 0.19 0.05
1981 0.26 0.13
1982 0.04 0.12
1983 0.25 0.16
1984 0.09 0.17
1985 0.04 0.14
1986 0.12 0.11
1987 0.27 0.15
1988 0.31 0.17
1989 0.19 0.19
1990 0.36 0.25
1991 0.35 0.30
1992 0.13 0.27
1993 0.13 0.23
1994 0.23 0.24
1995 0.37 0.24
1996 0.29 0.23
1997 0.39 0.28
1998 0.56 0.37
1999 0.32 0.39
2000 0.33 0.38
2001 0.47 0.41
2002 0.56 0.45
2003 0.55 0.45
2004 0.48 0.48
2005 0.63 0.54
2006 0.55 0.55
2007 0.58 0.56
2008 0.44 0.54
2009 0.58 0.56
2010 0.63 0.56
Even a blind fool can see that is on the rise.
As for your comments about Trenberth, Kaufmann and Vernier – I note you don’t reference their actual papers. But to deal with your points – it’s a measureable fact that the Ocean stores heat (it’s a great heat reservoir) and it’s been established that, although the world HAS been warming (see above plus 3 of the hottest years ever in the last decade). Trenberth is doing REAL physics based on the energy balance (energy in, less out must be how much that remains). Shame you don’t understand that. As for Kaufman and Vernier – well, guess what, aerosols DO contribute to cooling. Thanks goodness! Without those aerosols we’d be a lot hotter now and yet the data above CLEALY shows we are warming anyway.
With due respect (something I note very few on here accord anyone who doesn’t agree with them) It is YOU who are trolling and who is uninformed.
Okay – I’m done 🙂
The entire premise of this thread has been shown to be false.
None of you have any real science on which you can base your claims – nor do you seem to appreciate that the actual science debate is taking place, quite properly, by scientists who actually know what they are doing and subject all their data, findings and conclusions to critical review by those who actually know what they are doing.
If you wish to persist in having an ill-informed misrepresentative debate via the blogosphetre I can’t help you. I certainly hope for your own sake you don’t take the approach when you need medical advice and treatment
Me, I’d rather be focusing on the sensible steps we can take to do something about it without creating too severe a disruption in our advanced western economies or denying the developing nations the right to improve their lot. That won’t be an easy task.
We can all help by looking to see what we can all do personally to reduce our energy use and make it more efficient – I’ve managed to reduce our power bills by more than 25% in the last few years despite price rises of far more than that in Australia – so there is scope for personal action as well as societal action. In Australia we will soon have a price on carbon plus an investment fund to develop useful alternative sources. The transition wo’t be easy but it has to happen sometime. China is developing the most advanced and largest solar inustry in the world (yes, I know their absolute emissions are growing but their per capita is looking good and that growth is a function of their economic development).
The USA could choose to take a leadership role in developing new sources of energy and maybe pay attention to Thoimas Friedman – that would keep it as the great leading democracy of our times – unfortunately I suspect, especially as indicated by many of the attitudes on here – it is more lilely to continue what may be a terminal decline.
Pity, but we can live in hope. Been nice to dialogue with you all. 🙂
mark harrigan says:
October 4, 2011 at 2:59 am.
Those are strong words coming from someone that is so biased that they cannot read objectively. I challange you to show where my ideas and techniques in analyzing the data are “crackpot” and where I am any less qualified as a scientist than IPPC climatetoligist to do such analysis. Yes, I was a project officer that awarded and monitored contracts, but we did original inhouse research as well, both laboratory and field studies. More than 60 of the articles that I authored or coauthored were published in peer reviewed documents. I even made it into a couple of Who’s Whos. Any one that compares google hits between us can judge for themselves who is the scientist and who is the troll.
Mark,
Many of us that comment here, that consider themselves scientist, are well aware of the “group think” credentials of Real Climate, having tried to comment and being moderated out. The internet will eventually replace paper publications and peer review will become a more open processes. Judy Curry’s blog is a good start. I don’t think your ranting would get anywhere on her site.
mark harrigan says:
October 4, 2011 at 2:41 am
@ur momisugly JPEden – That’s a lot of contorted language, backed up by no substantiation that essentially shows you have no understanding of science
[The Super Hero then continued his devastating discourse.]
As mark harrigan’s Punisher looked over the battle field of his latest Victory, one of the vanquished villians was heard to exclaim to his fallen comrades, “Woe is to us, I fear we’ve all been slain by the mighty ‘Punisher’ himself!”
Mark Harrigan:
Why not just get back to us AFTER you understand the “Null Hypothesis”?! After all, one should not put any letters after one’s name until they do! It would also be useful, to think and conclude, using your own cerebrum’s capability, now and again. It might slow, your regurgitation of error, tendencies. GK
mark harrigan says:
October 4, 2011 at 2:43 am
@JohnWho – On that basis you are a complete fool since the link you found to a Mark harrigan isn’t me LOL (though he seems like a fine fellow albeit a bit obsessed with on-line role playing games – at least he’s not peddling misinformation like you). I live in Australia, studied at the University of Melbourne where I did my PhD.
“Got Him” you proudly pronounce?
Do you normally jump to conclusions without evidence so quickly?? Oh, yes, of course – you do.
(Bold mine)
I’m shocked to learn that that isn’t you!
LOL
Good to see you have a sense of humor, albeit on the mean-spirited side.
You’ve been duped by peddlers of misinformation and you spew forth their conclusions while accusing others of doing the same.
I believe the following is correct:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The source of the statement isn’t as important to me as is what the statement conveys.
It does not deny that we, mankind, may be adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
It does not deny that we have been warming since the end of the LIA and we may continue to do so for a undetermined amount of time.
It does not deny that atmospheric CO2 levels may have some effect on the climate – either cooling or warming.
What it does deny is that “human release of carbon dioxide…is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
In that regard, nothing you or any other believer in CAGW by CO2 has shown proves that human release of carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and/or disruption of the Earth’s climate.
One more time, none of these are proof of CAGW by CO2: (list not all inclusive)
-Arctic Ice disappearing
-Glaciers retreating
-Coral reef bleaching
-Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
-Polar bears doing anything anywhere
-Some creature or plant facing extinction
-A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
-Droughts
-Floods
-Dry rivers
-Computer models or simulations
-A “consensus”
-Al Gore’s movie
-Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc.
The real Mark as he would like to be viewed.
Home About Faculty
Entrepreneurship faculty
Danny Abramovich
Danny Abramovich arrives at ISEMI with a rich background in teaching and in the business sector, with a specialty in Marketing. A graduate of Lyon Graduate School of Business in France, Danny worked for several years at IsraCard, Ltd, and then moved on to found Marketing 2 Go Ltd., a marketing consulting company that includes marketing consulting, marketing representation, and marketing training. Marketing 2 Go Ltd., primarily consults for the service industries. Danny is also currently a part-time partner for an advertising agency.
Danny’s teaching credentials are also impressive. He has been teaching since 1996 in several graduate and undergraduate programs in Israel, including the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzelia, the extension of The University of Manchester Business School in Israel, and in the extension of the University of Derby in Israel. Danny has been teaching in Marketing oriented subjects, and will continue to do so at ISEMI, where he will be teaching New Venture Marketing and Global Marketing.
Eyal Benjamin
Eyal Benjamin is yet another natural entrepreneur. He has founded two companies, Kito Marcom, Ltd, a technological education company, and Freenet Communications, Ltd., an ISP. Eyal also served as CEO for both companies. After filling the position of VP of Marketing and Business Development for a Venture Capital Fund, Eyal moved on to establish a new software start-up which he developed during his studies at ISEMI.
Eyal graduated from Tel Aviv University with a degree in Engineering, and has also completed one year of MBA studies at Bar-Ilan. Eyal expects to formulate the large amount of knowledge and experience he has acquired to an ordered methodology at ISEMI. Furthermore, he would like to “fill in the gaps” of his knowledge in regards to the creation and management of new ventures. He feels that ISEMI would be an ideal environment to achieve both goals, while still pursuing his career.
Eyal thought, when his first start-up “crashed” that he would never do something on his own again. He soon discovered, however, that “once an entrepreneur, always an entrepreneur,” and has been searching for ways to continue to create new ventures, which happened sooner than he thought.
Eyal is the perfect example of the ideal ISEMI entrepreneur; a new venture creator, who has gone through the good times and the bad. He feels that his “creative thinking” is his greatest hobby, an example of creating a career out of what you love. Eyal is looking to move on for a PhD in which he will be able to develop new methodologies in Entrepreneurship Research.
Eyal feels that he can contribute a great amount of knowledge and experience to his fellow students, while also hoping that he can learn a great deal from them.
Eyal has stated his studies at ISEMI in 2002 and has been awarded the MEI degree on January 2005. Since 2003 he has been teaching several finance related entrepreneurship courses at ISEMI and has established two more ventures.
Dr. Reto Callegari
Dr Reto Callegari is Founder, Chairman and Managing Director of ADVAL CIC (S) PTE, Ltd., a successful financial institution in Singapore, where he functions as an Angel Investor in a wide array of companies. Hailing from Switzerland and with an impressive resume of Banking Activities, Dr. Callegari, already quite an expert in Asian enterprises, decided to make that area of the world his home.
Dr. Callegari worked at Credit Suisse in both Zurich and Geneva, and filled positions of great responsibility including acting as a member of the management team in directing expansion into Asia, serving on the board of ECOTEC, the Euro-China Organization for Technical and Economic Co-operation and holding the positions of Head of Private, Institutional Banking and Trading and Head of the International Department for Corporate Trade and Finance. He also served as Member of the Executive Committee, Chairman of Credit Suisse Investment Consulting Ltd. in Taiwan and as Member of the Executive Board and CEO in Asia Pacific. Prior to his work at the bank, Dr Callegari served on the National Research Council of Thailand as a Foreign Researcher.
Today, at ADVAL in Singapore, Dr. Callegari directs investments in new ventures and offers consulting/management services for start-up companies and investors. He acts as an investment advisor and as a member of various Boards of Directors. The Chairman of the International Advisory Panel of Suntec Labs, he also served as a lecturer and mentor at a number of business seminars and universities in Asia, Europe and Israel. Dr. Callegari received his undergraduate degree at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, and graduated from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He completed his Ph.D. work with Honors in Economic Geography at the University of Zurich. Now dedicated to lecturing at ISEMI on a regular basis, Dr. Callegari found us, and we him, in a very interesting way. While attending a Technopreneurship Conference in Singapore, sponsored by Swinborne University, Dr. Callegari met Professor Liora Katzenstein, who asked him to join the ISEMI team. The gain has been all ours.
Shoshana Emmanuel
Ms. Shoshana Emmanuel specializes in teaching discourse analysis and literacy for academic purposes in English, Hebrew, and French. Her courses provide the students with the tools to analyze articles while identifying their structure, major arguments, and purpose.
Ms. Emmanuel completed her studies for the M.A. in English and French at Tel Aviv University. She further studied in those departments at the University of Geneva, at the Goldman Institute for Business Communication in Geneva and at the Sorbonne University in Paris.
Prof. Michael Epstein
With a strong background in sciences including a B.Sc. in Chemistry, an M.Sc. in Physical Chemistry, a Ph.D. from the Weizman Institute in Biochemistry, and a post doctorate fellowship at Cornell University, Dr. Mike Epstein decided to augment his training with a formal entrepreneurship education . He came to study at ISEMI and was granted a Masters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Since garnering his degree, Dr. Epstein has deepened his involvement with the institution and now acts as the Program Director of the master degree studies as well as a lecturer on a number of topics. Prof. Epstein has amassed a great deal of experience “in the real world”, as well. He served as a visiting scientist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. USA, and was appointed Senior Scientist at Rogoff-Welcome Research Institute at the Beilinson Hospital. Interested in combining his science know-how with business, Dr. Epstein moved to Isolab, Inc, a medical and agricultural diagnostics company of 100 employees in Akron Ohio, where he was a member of the management team in charge of business development. Returning to Israel, he was named Deputy Head of a Holding Group in charge of Biotech for Ampal, American Israel Corporation, where he also served as a board member of subsidiaries and CEO of Tayco Diagnostics and Pharma Clal and increased sales by 35% and profit by 25%, despite an overall drop in the industry over the same period. Dr. Epstein was also involved in health care institutes as co-founder, partner and CEO of Libit Cardiac Health Institutes, Ltd., and CEO of Hilla Dental Health Institutes, Ltd. At Hilla, Dr. Epstein took a twelve million dollar business of 12 dental clinics with a long record of losses, and turned it into a profitable business. Prof. Epstein struck out on his own and founded “Machshava”, a hi tech business consulting firm which dealt mostly with companies in the field of biotech, and consulted on the many business and professional aspects of the field. Prof. Epstein is presently involved in BioTargeting Ltd. and D4all Ltd. as the cofounding entrepreneur and CEO. The former is a startup company dealing with novel X-ray and ultrasound imaging, while the latter is a startup concerned with internet trading. Prof. Epstein also has his hands in real estate with the Chen Hasharon project – a self-owned project of 42 town houses for which Prof. Epstein has full responsibility.
Dr. Samuel Frankel
Dr. Samuel Frankel’s wide areas of expertise include a wide array of aspects of financial management. Today a successful economic and financial consultant, he garnered his experience through a number of high-level positions: Dr. Frankel carried out the establishing operations of a Cross Borders Leasing Corporation in Alamaty Kazakhstan for the C.I.S. countries. Later he was responsible for conducting a feasibility study and for securing funds for the MIDOR Refinery, in Alexandria Egypt. During 1998 -1999 he was part of the team conducting the Due Diligence as well as soliciting investors for the privatization of the Armenian Yeravan Electricity Companies for the Government of Armenia, as part of the World Bank activity. Prior to that, Dr. Frankel founded Genmedix, a generic drug corporation, and was responsible for establishing cost, financial reporting and marketing contracts for Genmedix. During 1991-94, at the Meuchedet Health Fund, he served as a Medical Division Economist, while at Kupat Holim Leumit, he was responsible for preparing the recovery plan and subsequent follow-up with relevant authorities toward the ministry of Health and Treasury if Israel.
Dr. Frankel was a Senior Economist and member of the Executive Management of the Israel Corporation, where he was responsible for the analysis and preparation of company mergers acquisitions. Before that he served as the Deputy Director of Investments and Treasurer of Migdal Insurance Company, Where he was responsible for the cash flow of the company as well as for investment in various securities, debentures and loans. During 1980-85 he worked at Israel Discount Bank, preparing working papers for the bank’s senior management regarding Euromarket interests and exchange rate fluctuations, new public and private offerings, evaluating and operating procedures with large Banks clients and reviewed the bank’s financial spreads.
Dr. Frankel was awarded a B.A. in Economy, with a minor in Mathematics and Information and Computer Science from Georgia State University. He earned his M.B.A. and Ph.D. at the School of Business Administration at the same institution.
Amir Freund
Amir Freund completed a B.Sc. at the Technion in Haifa in the framework of the IDF Academic Reserve program, and then joined the Mamdas unit of the Israel Air Force, which is responsible for software development for IAF avionic and radar systems. Amir remained in the IAF until 1991, including three years as part of the IAF project management team developing the MMRS Radar System at Norden Technologies in Connecticut, and then helping with the development and testing of the system in Israel. Amir then began accumulating knowledge of Wireless systems: for four years he was software group manager for a telecom company in Herzliya, working on Wireless Local Loop (WLL) development; and for two years he was project manager for another telecom company in Petach Tikva, where he managed the development of a WLL Personal Communication System for the US market.
Equipped with this thorough experience, in 1996 Amir became co-founder of Floware Wireless Systems, where he acted as VP R&D, involved in many aspects of company strategy. The company has grown into a world leader in broadband wireless communication with over 300 employees, and taken public in NASDAQ in 1999 (FLRE). Subsequently it merged with Breezcom Ltd. and became Alvarion (ALVR).
Amir says he now wants to take some time out and add to his education with a masters degree in business. While ISEMI is proud of the practical, hands-on experience it offers its students, interestingly enough many who register for the MEI course are seeking to back up their existing practical experience with theoretical knowledge, and Amir is clearly in this category. He will doubtless have a great deal to contribute to his sessions at ISEMI.
Professor Murray Gilin
(PhD(Cantab), MEd(Hons) (Melb), MEngSc (Melb), BMetEng (Hons) (Melb), ASMB(Ballarat), FTS, FIEAust, FAIM, FACE, FWACE)
Murray Gillin’s professional career has covered a broad spectrum beginning as an engineer with the Defence Industry with subsequent appointments to positions of Research Scientist with the Defence Science & Technology Organisation, Defence Research Attaché at the Australian Embassy in Washington, USA, Senior Principal Research Scientist in Defence Science, Canberra. In 1979 he was appointed Dean of Engineering at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne. As Dean of Engineering he developed the Engineering Faculty into Australia’s largest and most successful compulsory work-integrated-learning program and in 1989 he formed the School of Innovation and Enterprise. In January 1994 he was appointed Pro Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University of Technology.
His research interests cover the development of high-performance carbon-fibre-reinforced composites, evaluation of cooperative education and the process of innovation and entrepreneurship in managing growing enterprises. He currently directs several research programs with some 18 PhD candidates.
The development of innovative programs within the Graduate School of Entrepreneurship have contributed significantly to the range of quality programs offered to educate entrepreneurial managers. These programs are recognised as world leaders in the development of relevant entrepreneurial education and have been offered in Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
His professional qualifications include – Fellow, Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Fellow, The Institution of Engineers, Australia, Fellow, Australian Institute of Management, Fellow, Australian College of Education, Fellow, World Association for Cooperative Education, Member, Australian Institute of Physics, Senior Member, American Institute for Mining and Metallurgy and Foundation Member, Australian Academy of Design. In 1997 Prof. Gillin was awarded the “Order of Australia” by the Australian Government and in 2001 he was nominated as “The Entrepreneurship Educator of The Year”.
David Goldman, Esq.
Mr. Goldman has vast law and economic experience, both in education and in law. He is a graduate of three programs at Hebrew University in Jerusalem; a BA in Accounting and Economics, a LL.B (jointly with the BA), and he received his LL.M in 1999.
Mr. Goldman has worked as an assistant to the president of the Municipal Court in Jerusalem, and as an Attorney for a private law office, as well as for the Tel Aviv District Attorney’s office (both in the fiscal field). He is currently a partner dealing primarily in tax law in a prominent law firm in Tel Aviv.
Mr. Goldman’s teaching experience includes several prestigious institutions such as the Interdisciplinary Center for Law in Herzelia, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the University of Haifa.
Mr. Goldman has also written several articles in professional journals (such as Taxes, The Accountant, and Knowledge to Information) on fiscal and legal issues.
Professor Adolph M. Hanich
Adolph Hanich is at present the director of the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship at Swinburne University of Technology. He was the founder and principal of Fairhaven Associates Pty Ltd a strategy consulting practice. Prior to starting his own practice, he was a senior partner with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu – Asia, one of the global “big five” professional firms, where he was involved in a leadership capacity in both management consulting and corporate advisory work.
Over the last twenty years he has consulted to a wide cross section of Australia’s major business and public sector enterprises. Originally trained as a chemical engineer, he switched to a management career and had some twelve years experience as a corporate executive in several major multi-nationals, before joining the consulting profession.
Adolph Hanich has been a pracademic at Swinburne since 1994, has also taught at Monash University and has been a guest lecturer at RMIT and Melbourne Business School.
Over the years he has been involved in the start up (and shut down) of a number of enterprises. He has been a Director of numerous companies and is currently chairman of several Boards.
Dr. Mark Harrigan
“Dr. Mark Harrigan has extensive practical experience with the business of creativity and innovation having brought new products to the market in a wide variety of industries.
He is an accomplished facilitator and workshop and seminar presenter. Voted “Speaker of the Year” in 1999 by The Executive Connection, an international organisation of CEO’s. Dr Harrigan has been personally trained and accredited by Dr Edward de Bono, the inventor of the term “Lateral Thinking”, to teach and use his techniques and is Australia’s most experienced trainer in this area Dr Harrigan has a diverse background covering R&D, Manufacturing, Marketing and Corporate & Business Strategy. He holds a Ph.D. in Atomic Physics from Melbourne University and began his professional career with Kodak Australasia, as an R&D scientist and manager and then as a National Divisional Marketing Manager. Prior to establishing his consulting business he was the Manager of Business Innovation at Invetech, a leading Australian consulting firm to the manufacturing industry.
Dr Harrigan lectures in Strategy at the Company Director’s Course for the Australian Institute of Company Directors and runs a course in Innovation at the Israel School of Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation and at the Swinburne Graduate School of Management’s Masters of Enterprise Innovation. He is also Strategy Director of a $30 million turnover food manufacturer and Chairman of a small computer services company.
Dr Harrigan’s client list includes BHP, BTR Nylex, CSR, KPMG, McDonalds, Pacific Dunlop, Reckitt & Colman, Southcorp, and Yellow Pages Australia, as well as several smaller enterprises and a range of government organisations and utilities.”
Sorry about the above. I did a copy and paste and thought I had only copied Mark’s paragraph.
Utter bullshit Mark Harrigan. Please go check HADCRUT, RSS and UAH data and find out where is this warming you talk of since 1998 till now. Your 5 year moving average as an indicator of Global Warming is absurd.
And by the way the entire Global Warming [non ] Science so far on which the IPCC is thriving is based upon HADCRUT data. You don’t even seem to know that.
And read the links referenced and read the papers published. The names of the papers are given. Go do your homework first. And what you are doing is unverified blogoshpere trolling, with no knowledge of science or facts and no honesty.
@ur momisugly Ventner – Piffle.
The data I show is from Nasa based on GISS – good link explaining relationship to HADCRUT here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/
HADCRUT is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadCRUT
GISS here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISS
There is broad agreement between these two sources as explained here http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=468
The data I have posted is AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO SEE if they would but look at the NASA key indicators site. http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#globalTemp
If you want to assert that is false please provide the references to the many peer reviewed papers by qualified scientists (
It is you who have no understanding and are dishonest. As is this entire thread.
@ur momisugly You all
I have already said
“First – in relation to this thread. No one has successfully refuted my point that this entire IG/OMB/EPA issue has been trumped up Inhofe based on a falsehood. Regardless of your views on AGW the IG made no finding in relation to the science. So Carlin’s comments, Inhofe’s challenge and the media beat up surrounding it is based on a deliberately politicised misrepresentation. Surely that should give some of you pause?”
Apparently not??
It took me all of five minutes to establish that fact. How come none of you could do so??? Confirmation bias?? Predisposition to a certain view??
What does that say for your credibility??
We obviously disagree. I claim that I have the science on my side and have made my case for that claim. You dispute it (though not terribly well).
What cannot be disputed is that the premise of this thread is false, nor that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with my position as do all the major bodies of science. Readers can draw their own conlusions from that.
But – let us part on good terms.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/10/04/an-open-letter-to-climate-change-deniers-and-skeptics-the-final-chocolate-straw/
Even you guys will appreciate (I hope) the humour/tongue in cheek of this.