Slashdot Mirror
EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming
theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
This has already been addressed at RealClimate. The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself. But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.
Translation: It's OK to silence dissent when it's expedient.
I don't know the scientific community was pretty adamant in its consensus against the Bush administration on this.
This guy sounds like a holdover from individuals hired by the previous administration to refute the rest of the scientific community.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Skimming TFA, I found myself wondering if we might not have hired a few wingnuts into the EPA during the Bush years. "No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim. And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.
if you play with a dataset long enough you can get it to spit out almost any answer you want. it's one of my fears with global warming, that it's so agenda driven that the numbers are being bent in one sides favour.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of, but one thing's sticking out like a sore thumb: their "best fit" (the violet line). Basically they're applying a formula meant to find the line that fit bests a set of points that look like they're on a straight line ... to something that's evidently NOTHING like a straight line at all.
It would be completely retarded and incompetent, if it wasn't so obvious that they are lying scumbags and know that they can get away with such gross manipulation since their audience is composed mainly of retards, amoebas and lower life forms like conservatives and creationists.
I find it odd that people who publish works that don't follow the prevailing wisdom that writes the pay checks for AGW researchers are called skeptics or crackpots
This is pretty much how it works in every discipline. You've never heard of anyone having trouble publishing something that goes against current thinking? That you think it only applies to climate theory sort of makes you look like a douchebag.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
It's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and here I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who doesn't believe the crap on CNN.
Global warming is a scam.
9/11 was allowed to happen.
Electric cars are a bad idea.
GWB is a war criminal.
Obama is GWB's evil twin.(transparent government my ass that why he covers up sick freak who like to torture people.)
Wake up and smell the bullshit you arn't Obamas's buddy he won't help you out for turning a blind eye on his and GWB crimes.
Are you saying that by learning things people change their actions and opinions?
I sure hope that is what happens when people get educated. Thanks for making the phenomenon evident by your observation.
We stopped talking about mercury, PM2.5, smog, PCBs, etc and we started to focus very obsessively on CO2.
The reason why we started talking obsessively, is that a bunch of well funded loud-mouths are spreading disinformation specifically to stone-wall any societal action. They are funded by exxon, and are the very same people who did the very same thing to stonewall public action on smoking policy a few decades ago.
Basically these guys are soaking up lots of public mind-space, to stop any progress at all on AGW issues, and that leaves less room for other important problems. Basically, the message from corporate america is: "we'll fight you at every turn, and no trick is too dirty". So of course we can't move past the AGW issue.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It's not a point of view, it's a set of loyalties. He's loyal to "the economy", i.e. rich people.
I find it peculiar that economists still have the nerve to claim their bullshit pseudo-science is a better predictor than the physics used in climatology.
It's extremely alarming that there is no longer any scientific debate about the existence of global warming, it's causes, it's effects or what to do about it.
You're as bad as most of the other replies in this thread, just in the opposite direction. Those debates don't happen anymore, because we've already had them and worked out a pretty solid idea of what's actually happening. The exact effects of high CO2 concentrations aren't known (computer sims aren't good enough to make useful predictions yet), but we can be certain that humans are driving CO2 and that's going to be an overall negative thing.
Not a typewriter
To whomever flagged me as a troll...
Again, I find it curious that all you can do is attack me, but you have nothing to say about the points I make in the attached article.
Your silence speaks volumes.