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."
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
Stop giving who power? The government? Yes, I am all for that. However we have a screwed up idea of a free society with a totally screwed up idea of representation that worked just fine when states made most of the laws but now we have a huge federal government with a tiny state government and the few rights states have get taken away by the federal government by extortion (make your drinking age 21 or we won't give you any money). Really, who do I vote for? I can vote libertarian which shares nearly 99% of my beliefs but probably won't get elected. I can vote for republicans which I agree with on many economic issues but disagree with their eroding of civil liberties, or I can vote for democrats who I agree with on their civil liberties but don't agree with them on the eroding of economic liberties and the right to bear arms.
Please tell me, how am I supposed to stop giving them power (with legal means of course).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
This man has been working for the EPA since 1971. Hell, he helped BUILD the place.
So what if he's "just an economist"? According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive. Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you. Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?
It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service. Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.
I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
[End Of Line]
Funny... when it comes to wanting to take away our civil liberties, I have a hard time telling either party apart.
Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject
Excuse me? As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
Please provide links to the data of this mysterious "everyone else" you refer to that contradict the published UAH and RSS data.
Otherwise, I think we have a completely new record of asshattery from our coward here: The Appeal to Authority fallacy without any actual authority. Awesome!
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of,
As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
their "best fit" (the violet line).
OK my friend, if your trend line from January 2002 to May 2009 is not a decline of 0.26 degrees per decade like their violet line, what is it then and how did you arrive at it?
Wow, I'm impressed that some moderator found that comment insightful, since (a) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the person in the article is a *climate scientist* or not, (b) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the the person in the article should be relied upon for an independent *scientific opinion* to be incorporated into a scientific report, (c) Al Gore has not, to my knowledge, attempted to speak *as a climate scientist* nor, to my knowledge, has he ever held himself out as *a climate scientist*, and (d) I've yet to see Al Gore attempt to introduce his own theories as to global warming derived from his own *scientific analysis*--my understanding is that he attempts to explain and distill what *scientists or the scientific literature* tell him, rather than relying on his own expertise.
So apparently the bar for 'insightful' on Slashdot these days is 'irrelevant, and comprising a logical fallacy'?
Every global warming theory uses the fallacy that technology does not naturally evolve. Think about it, 50 years ago who would have thought we would all be completely connected through computers back when a computer took up an entire room. Who would have thought 100 years ago that we could be safely capturing the energy of a split atom? Who would have thought 300 years ago that we would all be driving around in cars? Who (assuming the person lived in Europe) would have thought 1000 years ago that there was a landmass outside of Europe, Asia and Africa? Things evolve, things change. We know from past experiences that government mandated controls on the free economy lead to ruin. A free market will eventually make an affordable car that runs on something "greener" than gas. However, government funding traps us in the mentality of looking for a "perfect" solution (that is often impossible to work in the real world), so doable solutions that might not be 100% perfect get ignored because you get less funding from them.
I agree that there could be global warming. However government restrictions on the economy are not the answer. The free market will always have a solution to the problem.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just when Obama is about to spend tens of billions of the people's money on pseudoscientific environmental BS, this story shows up on Slashdot? And here I was complaining that Slashdot was a bastion of polical correctness and a mouthpiece for environmental wackos. Is the tide is reversing on the climate change alarmists/con artists or am I just dreaming?
Watch out, Obama. The public will tear you a new asshole if it so much as suspects that it's being ripped off by the enviro-mafia.
I tend to believe that it is impossible to burn THIS much fuel and have no effect on a balanced system. I pretty much believe Climate Change(tm) is possible.
My problem is that some of this has become the flat-earth dogma that science is supposed to rise above.
My wife is a wildlife biologist. Has a degree in Zoology and Conservation Ecology. Working on her masters. Her office consists of wildlife tech's working their way thru the "tree-hugger circuit" as I call it: taking several years worth of seasonal wildlife technician jobs before finding a permanent one. So I've hung out with, rock climbed with, had BBQ's with many more "hackysack-playing, bluegrass-listening, quickdry-and-plaid-wearing 20-something's" with ecological bachelors and masters degrees than you are ever likely to meet.
So take me as something of an educated witness that an ecological degree caries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question global warming" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
Broad brush? Unfairly stereo-typing? Mostly true? Yep. I put more faith behind the physics degree in explaining physical natural phenomena.
THL phish sticks
The Democrats have made up their mind. The laws will be passed.
No matter what the rest of the world does, they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship. Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out. The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is. Some day the whole truth will come out, that we won't know if this works for another 400 years.
The entire US economy is about to be ruined. Hopefully these green people won't mind plowing fields themselves, because that's where we are headed.
Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy. What a colossal lie. What a treason. What a waste.
This is my sig.
Finally, the U.S. proposals, and the assumptions about effort elsewhere, are extended to 2100 to allow exploration of the potential role of these bills in the longer-term challenge of reducing climate change risk. Simulations show that the 50% to 80% targets are consistent with global goals of atmospheric stabilization at 450 to 550 ppmv CO2 but only if other nations, including the developing countries, follow suit.
Just the lunacy of focusing on CO2. There have been studies on plants, and they are practically STARVING for more CO2. If anything we should be looking for more ways to get MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, no I'm serious! Apparently the yield increases in plants may have had something to do with the slight increase in CO2 we have managed over the past 100 years. Colorado University agrees with me on this anyway.
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
So if we cut CO2 levels we might not be able to squeeze as much yield out of our fields as we are currently doing. Well it's a good thing we're moving to more ethanol bases products. Oh wait, hold on a second...
Ok, so it seems what you're basically saying here is, the guy's background is in physics and econonomics--he's not a climate scientist (btw, who is--do you have to have a degree called "climate science" or can other scientists count as well?) and so his writings on anything touching on the climate should just be dismissed (I notice that you haven't touched on any of the merits / lack thereof of anything he's actually written, so I assume this is your point of view)?
Lastly, since he doesn't fit in the "solid consensus," he should just get in line with the consensus.
You'll forgive me, but that doesn't sound like any kind of scientific community / environment that I would want to be associated with or promote, and I seriously hope you would agree. I don't think this has anything to do with what side of the "global warming debate" / whatever you want to call it you fall on.
btw, slightly off-topic, but it seems somewhat noteworthy that others were interested in the EPA's submission process of the IPCC as seen at: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
As it is, the governments seem very weak compared to corporate power.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It seems Obama isn't the only one quashing dissenting opinions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Summary. Leading export on Polar Bears excluded from Polar Bear conference because he is a "skeptic" (shudder)
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And he has a point. Most people are not well enough educated to understand that there will always be dissent. Most of the time the climate change deniers use that as evidence that there is no problem coming.
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
It's a little disingenuous to say that his background is in physics and economics. His undergrad is in physics, that doesn't mean anything. He's had a career; what does it consist of? (No, I don't know the answer.) At least as an economist, he may well be on firm footing on the potential economic impact of hasty decisions.
Interesting that the research he quotes to make his point is funded by those groups who stand to lose the most if global warming legislation is passed.
Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:
Robert C. Balling Jr - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.
Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."
Robert M. Carter - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.
The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.
FreeSpeech.org
Yeah, it wasn't the Government that created the internet... oh wait, yes it was. If you can point to this great internet analogue that was squashed by the government, you might have SOME kind of credibility, otherwise it's yet more empty rhetoric. And never mind the transistor, mosfets, LSI, fiber optics, and cell phone technology invented by Bell labs with a majority of funding from the Government (what today's neocons would call 'pork'). The NIH (the major funding organization behind Bell Labs) is responsible for much of the medical breakthroughs in the last 60 years as well. And of course we don't need the CDC (heavy sarcasm). Oh, and of course I'd trust my family's clean drinking water and disease and chemical free food to the corporate sector as well, because you know they police themselves so well, as evidenced by Enron, Global Crossing, Haliburton, Qwest, Tyco, World Com, Bear-Sterns, Citigroup, etc., etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
And on Bush vs Obama on the subject of 'squashing dissent':
Bush:
1. Omitted DATA for 1000 years and mandated the insertion of qualifying words such as "potentially" and "may" that the result would have been to insert "uncertainty... where there is essentially none."
2. Demanded that data from a discredited study funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute be included in climate change reports.
3. Demanded that The elimination of the summary statementâ" noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change-that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment."
On the other hand:
Obama:
1. Despite the fact that Alan Carlin was no part of any group tasked with studying climate control, Obama allowed his unsolicited and unwarranted report to be analyzed and subjected to PEER REVIEW, and was subsequently REJECTED by his PEERS.
Yeah, that's the same exact thing.
The thing that should stand out to anyone is that Carlin claims in this "report": "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
This is complete and utter HORSESHIT.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I REALLY expect more from the /. crowd.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
He is an ECONOMIST for fuck's sake. That IS relevant.
Regardless, Real Climate looked into this last week. Much detail there, finishing with: "So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."
The usual "climate skeptic" bollocks. He has nothing new.
He also claims in the report that quality of life of Americans has gone up, as have crop yields and that there are fewer annual deaths from heat stroke. While these all may be true, his attempt to connect them to global warming is nonsensical at best, and grossly stupid at worst.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/global-warming-has-paused/?opinion
If any of you read the Wegman report, you'll know that Climate Scientists make use of some very questionable statistical methods (i.e. methods often not even cited in text books), yet their papers are not peer reviewed by statisticians. As the Climatologists don't themselves understand the mathematics they're using to "prove" their hypothesis (or rather, they do understand how to make the figures point to warming, even when it's cooling), it seems to me a little churlish to accuse any interested intellect (in this case a very clever man) of being ignorant of the Science, when he's at least as smart as the so called experts themselves.
Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate had basically the same response and, further, he bemoaned the lack of statistical analysis in Carlin's paper. This is the same Schmidt who trumpeted Hansen, Mann (both well known for creating fantasy stastical analysis) and, amazingly, Steig's paper on Antarctic warming, which has been shown to be a complete load of bunk!
If I had to choose between one view or the other, purely based on the integrity and intelligence of the proponents, I would choose the sceptics. The colder it gets, the more shrill the warmists are getting. This whole scare is one of the most sordid, ridiculous and idiotic episodes in the history of the Science.
One does have to look at the broader context in situations like this.
First point, since it has some humor value, is that Carlin's field is economics. He is expert in the same studies and techniques as those wonderful quants who gave the financial world those marvelous risk management tools called "derivatives". Economics was nick-named "the dismal science" for a couple of reasons, one being a reference to the quality of the extrapolations that economists have used in their predictions.
More serious points: this news is presented to the world through the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It has a $3 million+ annual budget, and is supported by donations from ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Phillip Morris, and others. It is characterized as a "libertarian" think tank ideologically opposed to any government regulation of business conduct. It has taken an active role in advocating for "free-market environmentalism" where corporations and not governments would determine the best way to manage the environment. It has been a continuing, constant critic of global warming concerns. (See Wikipedia article, also validation of primary source, also Google on "Competitive Enterprise Institute".)
WRT Alan Carlin himself: he has been in the US Civil Service for 38 years, so he is fully vested in one of the best retirement packages in the world, and he is at retirement age. His title is "Senior Operations Research Analyst" at the National Center for Environmental Economics of the EPA. He would be at the top of his pay scale at this point, and it is unlikely that continued Federal employment has anything to offer him that he would be interested in doing (a common theme through the papers he has published in the last few years shows a bias against the kinds of Federal protections that the Obama Administration is involved in setting up). It is not at all unlikely that he will soon start drawing his Federal pension and begin a second career in the private sector as a consultant with expertise on EPA matters, or as a staff person in a think tank not unlike CEI. (see synopsis of A. Carlin's career.)
WRT the emails that were sent to Carlin, that were then mysteriously leaked to the national media through CEI: Carlin attempted to inject his argument against a policy decision into the works after he would have known that the period for such commentary was closed. Further, he was acting out of his area of expertise, which is economics, by attempting a review of the recent literature of climate research papers. Further, and to me most telling, is that he admits that he has not formatted his work in accordance with EPA standards, nor is providing proper citations that would allow distinguishing between crap and peer reviewed papers. I see this clearly showing that he had an ulterior motive of monkeywrenching the process, since his past publications show that he knows very well how to write these kinds of papers. It looks very much like he knew his work would be rejected, planned on having it rejected, and planned on collecting the emails that he would receive afterward to use in the way that these emails have been used. (See the .pdf referred to in the article summary, and note that the 4 emails were cherry picked from a much longer body of correspondence.)
BTW, taken in context,the quote from Carlin's boss, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," takes on a very different meaning. What Carlin is being told is that discussion has moved on from what the science is to what the legal and societal implications are, and how to frame a policy that addresses those c
Will