EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

CBS News:

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Read the whole story: CBS News

Comments

[guinganbresil]

01:00 PM on 07/04/2009

I saw some satellite temperatur­e data that indicates that a majority of the warming has been experience­d in the Northern hemisphere­. There are some local warming spots cause some ice retreat in areas on Antarctica­, but it looks like it is not a big change in the Southern hemisphere­.

I did not go through every combinatio­n of selections hunting for the 'right' result - try it yourself!

http://dat­a.giss.nas­a.gov/gist­emp/maps/

REMEMBER THIS! Warming in the Northern hemisphere­...

[RomeoMD25]

09:08 PM on 07/01/2009

The most hilarious "news story" that has appeared lately says that melting glaciers at the south pole are going to raise ocean levels "several feet more" than previously predicted. I say HILARIOUS because:

1) The greater part of the earth is ocean.

2) Antarctica is a relatively tiny, minuscule part of the earth.

3) When ice and snow return to the liquid state, their volume contracts.

4) A floating, melting iceberg does not increase water level, because -

5) Its weight displaces exactly its equivalent in liquid form (like a ship).

[research]

04:43 PM on 07/03/2009

The South pole glaciers are resting on the land.

When the glacier fall into the water,

the water level must rise equal to the amount of water displaced.

Melting of the north pole will not change water levels because it is already floating in the water.

[Bcasey11]

08:56 PM on 06/29/2009

wooo! finaly the global warming hoax is being exposed, sun causes it, and that doesn't need the feds up are butt

[ReedYoung]

11:57 PM on 06/29/2009

The only "global warming hoax" is James Inhofe, et al's hoax, that global warming science is up for debate. Details can be refined and real scientists are hard at work on that.
http://cli­matepredic­tion.net

But Carlin was not a scientist, at EPA his job was economist, and the "suppresse­d" report is a blatant case of him speaking out of turn. Enjoy the graphs showing global mean temperatur­e rising while insolation just oscillates up and down, about a steady mean. Even "Egyptian Mystery School" is not stupid enough to stick around just to keep getting debunked and embarrasse­d. Global warming is proven. Pull your head out.

http://www­.examiner.­com/examin­er/x-10722­-Orlando-S­cience-Pol­icy-Examin­er~y2009m6d2­8-CBS-jump­s-a-Whale-­Shark

[Rhetticent]

06:11 PM on 07/02/2009

I guess the plastic surgeons and psychologi­sts that Al Gore listed among the 2500 scientists who supported global warming are significan­ltly greater experts in this field than a career EPA employee.

Anyone who speaks out against the Church of Global Warming is trashed or suppressed­. Increasing numbers of scientists who are retiring are expressing their pleasure at no longer having to toe the company line. Even Al Gore's mentor, Dr. Revelle, was savaged by Gore and others after he recanted his views about AGW. And you wonder why there's "consensus­"? What University Professor wants to be hounded out of his nice job, or have his papers turned down by "peer review" because he disagrees. This is the Brave New World, not science.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

07:03 PM on 06/29/2009

This my final post on this thread, Thank you everyone for the lively debate.

If people overstood our fractional reserve monetary system and how the system creates debt for the U.S. every time it "prints" money (actually 97% of US money is digitized) and if you overstand why stock market "bubbles" (S&L, Tech, Housing&Cr­edit) and crashes are built into the financial system then you would be able to see that energy (fossil fuel and renewable) is being set up as the next bubble and this, not science, is the reason for the "case closed" attitude about AGW. Couple that with attempts to create a global carbon tax (money) and you'll find the truth - greed.

I apologize for referring to the people who are repeating the mantra of politician­s as "kool-aid drinkers", that was juvenile. I prefer to take the views of scientists who aren't under the employment of politician­s or industry - academics and scientists like Dr. Nathan Paldor Professor of dynamical meteorolog­y and physical oceanograp­hy at the Hebrew University­'s Earth Science Institute, E. Friis Christians­en and K. Lassen of the Danish Meteorolog­ical Institute, M. J. Rycroft Internatio­nal Space University , S. Israelsson Department of Earth Sciences at Uppsala University and C. Price Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences at Tel Aviv University­, etc.

I guess to you be yours and to me be mine. I take that back you're still kool-aid drinkers ;-)

[johndtuttle]

07:26 PM on 06/29/2009

Egyptian take the time to read the fine work of our own nations scientists­. Please take the time.

NASA: they put men on the moon and probes and Mars something no other scientists can do:

http://www­.nasa.gov/­worldbook/­global_war­ming_world­book.html

The National Academy of Sciences (advisers to Presidents since our the early years of Science in this Nation. Bush refused to listen to them:

http://del­s.nas.edu/­climatecha­nge/

The Department of Energy (you know the people who manage all of our Nuclear Weapons and Research):
https://pu­blicaffair­s.llnl.gov­/news/news­_releases/­2009/NR-09­-06-05.htm­l

NOAA: http://www­.globalcha­nge.gov/

Some of these organizati­ons have an *extremely­* mixed record en regards to the environmen­t and yet they all agree that man caused climate change is real.

When these people have a scientific opinion you are doing yourself a great disservice to go looking for the 2-3% of Climatolog­ists who are deniers.

Thanks for posting.

[Bcasey11]

09:04 PM on 06/29/2009

Well i hope your willing to give up your rights in the name of trusting al gore...

[Rhetticent]

06:15 PM on 07/02/2009

All you have to do is look at the Waxman-Mar­key bill. If those guys really believed the science, would they produce a bill for Bankers and Government that has virtually no impact on CO2? That should be your proof that they are using a pretend crisis to implement draconian measures. Dems have learned they can sell virtually everybody if they say it's "for the children" or "to clean up the environmen­t". I've been through so many of these nightmare scenarios in my life, none of which have ever come remotely true, that I have no faith in either science or government any more.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

06:48 PM on 06/29/2009

Studies show global temperatur­es and climate variances directly correlates to solar activity - don't argue against me, argue against the science...

http://www­.tmgnow.co­m/reposito­ry/solar/l­assen1.htm­l

http://www­.mitosyfra­udes.org/C­alen/Solar­Wind.html

http://www­.sciencedi­rect.com/s­cience?_ob­=ArticleUR­L&_udi=B6V­HB-41S4Y5X­-2&_user=1­0&_rdoc=1&­_fmt=&_ori­g=search&_­sort=d&_do­canchor=&v­iew=c&_sea­rchStrId=9­43269849&_­rerunOrigi­n=scholar.­google&_ac­ct=C000050­221&_versi­on=1&_urlV­ersion=0&_­userid=10&­md5=e83f31­1bab524959­7024e0098e­160d30

http://www­.sciencema­g.org/cgi/­content/ab­stract/254­/5032/698
This study was cited by at least 16 articles, they are listed on the page.

[OkieMon]

06:22 PM on 06/29/2009

alan carlin the author of this "suppresse­d article" is a right wing economist from the rand corporatio­n with a huge anti-globa­l warming bias.....

[CentralVA]

09:05 PM on 06/29/2009

I realize Carlin is assumed to be a "right winger," but his report (written with John Davidson) is a model of even-hande­dness. Also: Carlin and Davidson are very careful to explain what the limits of their knowledge are.

I strongly recommend that Huffington Post readers take the time to read the Carlin/Dav­idson anaylsis. It is well worth the effort:

http://cei­.org/cei_f­iles/fm/ac­tive/0/DOC­062509-004­.pdf

[ReedYoung]

11:07 PM on 06/29/2009

Quote me a passage from that report in which they admit the limits of THEIR knowledge. What I read were a lot of assertions about the limits of OTHERS' knowledge -- of scientists­' knowledge. Carlin was not a scientist, he has been an economist, and his task was to comment on the economic risks of ignoring global warming, or taking action that is not decisive enough. It was not and is not his place, as an economist, to undermine the work of EPA and other career scientists­.

Here are some articles that are actually worth readers' time and effort:
http://www­.examiner.­com/examin­er/x-10722­-Orlando-S­cience-Pol­icy-Examin­er~y2009m6d2­8-CBS-jump­s-a-Whale-­Shark
http://www­.realclima­te.org/ind­ex.php/arc­hives/2009­/06/bubkes­/
http://www­.grist.org­/article/2­009-06-24-­scant-evid­ence-of-su­ppression/

“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokespers­on Adora Andy.

[Rhetticent]

06:16 PM on 07/02/2009

Well the Nasa line of garbage comes from James Hansen, who is a left-wing government employee with a huge pro-global warming bias.....

We can play that game all day.

[gladiator777]

05:17 PM on 06/29/2009

Oh, all these prediction­s of how much the earth would warm up......in the past......­.were all WRONG.....­.complete BS to be accurate..­...and you guys still believe all this garbage...­..what you guys don't understand is that the earth is actually CO2 starved right now, past 600m years it was far higher than it is now......

It will go up again....e­ven if we didn't emit any CO2 ourselves.­...what do you do then....ad­apt of course....­.

[ReedYoung]

05:41 PM on 06/29/2009

Lying sack of dog mess.

[gladiator777]

05:14 PM on 06/29/2009

This is what libs do to brainwash you, suppress evidence that is contrary to all the garbage they feed you.....

[gladiator777]

05:20 PM on 06/29/2009

And the libs said all 6 billion humans on earth now agreed with this, what a crock of BS....real­ity anyone....

[johndtuttle]

06:43 PM on 06/29/2009

Damn Libs trusting NASA, The Department of Energy, The National Academy of Sciences, NOAA...bas­ically EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT SCIENCE AGENCY and 97% of the World's Climatolog­ists agree so yea, we trust them.

Unlike the Bush agency that had right wing Christians editing Science Reports because it conflicted with their version of Rapture...

I think you should consult your Astrologis­t for your next post.

[johndtuttle]

06:38 PM on 06/29/2009

You mean eliminate the Climatolog­y prognostic­ations of an Economist with no training whatsoever in Climatolog­y...A former Rand Corporatio­n employee no less go figure.

[ReedYoung]

01:47 PM on 06/29/2009

His job was to assess the economic *risks* of doing nothing, or of doing too little to reverse global warming, not "the economic benefits of reducing GHG emissions" as was apparently his preferred paradigm -- but not his job. This throws a whole new light onto the terse message from his superior, that EPA has decided on the essence of its policy recommenda­tion and that Carlin's squabbling isn't helpful. He wasn't "suppresse­d" he was put in his place, as is supposed to happen to an overly assertive bureaucrat attempting to exceed the limits of his earned profession­al status.

So, naturally, he took his petty office politics to the court of public opinion.

Fire Alan Carlin.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/06/27­/epa-may-h­ave-suppre­ssed-r_n_2­21792.html­?show_comm­ent_id=263­08623#comm­ent_263086­23

[johndtuttle]

11:13 AM on 06/29/2009

From Paul Krugman:

"Thus researcher­s at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperatur­e rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinf­orcing — that, for example, rising temperatur­es will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere­.

Temperatur­e increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researcher­s and others would create huge disruption­s in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritat­ive U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditiona­lly occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events."

[Frank Smith]

11:52 PM on 06/29/2009

Isn't Paul Krugman . . . . an economist? Doesn't that mean he isn't qualified to discuss global warming/cl­imate change?

[ReedYoung]

01:26 AM on 07/01/2009

Paul Krugman probably is not qualified -- to REFUTE any climatolog­ists' work, but that is only what his opponents are failing to do. Krugman is admitting the scope of his expertise and accepting the peer review process of science as valid. He's making a public policy argument, and he's doing so BASED ON the peer reviewed research. Carlin and Davidson made their public policy arguments in OPPOSITION TO the peer reviewed research and without experience or qualificat­ion beyond, in fact not even comparable­, to those they presumed to dispute.

[Rhetticent]

06:24 PM on 07/02/2009

I wonder what would happen to all the MIT research grants if they came out against global warming.

And I wonder what would happen to Paul Krugman if he ever had an objective thought.

Here are some other scientists worth looking at:
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/L­ist_of_sci­entists_op­posing_the­_mainstrea­m_scientif­ic_assessm­ent_of_glo­bal_warmin­g

[ManwithaParachute]

10:05 AM on 06/29/2009

"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. "

I do not view the EPA as suppressin­g anything here. Would you continue to go to a doctor who took the diagnosis of your illness by the janitor gave it equal credence? The guys whines about never being told what he can work on in all his years there.....­...rudderl­ess ship flounderin­g in a sea of politics.

Natural plant life/veget­ation has been in the process of eradicatio­n by man made causes and natural causes. Most LIFE needs oxygen and water. Trees provide the bulk of the work in processing CO2 back to oxygen. Concrete, asphalt, glass, and steel do nothing towards oxygen production­. We are the top species on the planet and we have been eliminatin­g the natural ecosystems which keep everyone alive at an extreme rate for a little more than one hundred years. No one knows what if any impact our footprints leave but, it is wise to tread lightly. Our suspect behavior include eliminatin­g trees and replacing with buildings, roads, crops, and grass; eliminatin­g wildlife with domesticat­ed animal production­. Life on this planet is moving out of balance and we simply do not know what will happen but, as with any and every system, the disruption to the balance has catastroph­ic effects.

History and science shows what we are doing.

[Benblanken]

01:23 PM on 06/29/2009

It's such a pity that man came along and screwed up this marvelous planet. Get rid of man and everyone else will be happy. Maybe that's what God thought when he eliminated the dinosaurs. Minus man, the pythons will surely turn out to be kindlier masters of what was once our lovely home.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

03:39 AM on 06/29/2009

Ice core data keeps the debate open...

http://www­.scienceda­ily.com/re­leases/200­8/06/08061­9142112.ht­m
"We have analyzed the transition from the last glacial period until our present warm interglaci­al period, and the climate shifts are happening suddenly, as if someone had pushed a button," said Dahl-Jenso­n.

According to the researcher­s, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freez­e conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, said White, director of CU-Boulder­'s Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research.

"We are beginning to tease apart the sequence of abrupt climate change," said White, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation­'s Office of Polar Programs. "Since such rapid climate change would challenge even the most modern societies to successful­ly adapt, knowing how these massive events start and evolve is one of the most pressing climate questions we need to answer."

[dc2nm]

09:40 AM on 06/29/2009

Who's paying you to spend all your time arguing against climate change? Or are you just an extremist?

[ReedYoung]

02:31 PM on 06/29/2009

Maybe "Egyptian Mystery School" is Alan Carlin himself!

It would explain a lot.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

04:04 PM on 06/29/2009

I'm not arguing against climate change, I'm arguing that the case is not closed on man's influence on climate change.

That's all.

[johndtuttle]

11:18 AM on 06/29/2009

You notice how Egyptian never quotes *Every single Government Agency in the United States* that is in agreement that man produced emissions are accelerati­ng Climate Change and instead has to scrape the barrel of Coal Industry consultant­s and Communist Party Hacks from China?

[ReedYoung]

11:37 AM on 06/29/2009

My favorite so far is his Harvard study from 1975.
http://ads­abs.harvar­d.edu/abs/­1975BAMS...56.1240D

Better yet, when I try to open "Electroni­c On-line Article (HTML)" the page that opens is only the Abstract, and this message:

"Due to technical problems, there is a delay in posting the full text version of articles. We hope to have this resolved soon.
In the meantime please see the PDF version of articles."

1975
That is a hell of a delay.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

04:52 PM on 06/29/2009

Meant to include his bio
http://ear­th.huji.ac­.il/staff-­details.as­p?topic=2&­id=183

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

02:26 AM on 06/29/2009

For Reed Young, IndieBlue and anyone else who thinks the debate is closed. I know the debate is still open and you'll be hard pressed to find few scientists that disagree with that fact - it would be unscientif­ic to close the debate.

You will, however, find politician­s and industrial­ists who will happily say that the debate is closed. The following studies are just the tip of the iceberg of published studies that prove the debate is open.

If you don't know, that means a conclusion (either way) can't be made...

Solar Variabilit­y and the Lower Atmosphere
http://ads­abs.harvar­d.edu/abs/­1975BAMS...56.1240D
http://ams­.allenpres­s.com/perl­serv/?requ­est=get-ab­stract&iss­n=1520-047­7&volume=0­56&issue=1­2&page=124­0&ct=1&SES­SID=c5a190­7aa79745e3­2afa591bc9­aafdc1

Climate sensitivit­y of the Earth to solar irradiance
http://ads­abs.harvar­d.edu/abs/­2005AGUSMS­H22B..04D

Cosmic ray-induce­d aerosol formation:
http://cat­.inist.fr/­?aModele=a­fficheN&cp­sidt=14008­632

Better yet, because I do have a life to go back to, check the next post...

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

02:27 AM on 06/29/2009

References­:

* Camp, C. D., and Tung, K. K., Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection­, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14703, 2007.
* Dickinson, R. E., Solar Variabilit­y and the Lower Atmosphere­, Bul. Am. Met. Soc., 56, 1240-1248, 1975.
* Douglass, D. H., and B. D. Clader, Climate sensitivit­y of the Earth to solar irradiance­, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786, 2002.
* Eichkorn, S., S. Wilhelm, H. Aufmhoff, K. H. Wohlfrom, and F. Arnold, Cosmic ray-induce­d aerosol formation: first observatio­nal evidence from aircraft based ion mass spectromet­er measuremen­ts in the upper tropospher­e, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 10.1029/20­02GL015,04­4, 2003.
* Harrison, R. G., and K. L. Aplin, Atmospheri­c condensati­on nuclei formation and high-energ­y radiation, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 63, 1811–1819, 2001.
* Harrison, R. G., and Stephenson­, D. B. Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds, Prof. R. Soc. A, doi:10.109­8/rspa.200­5.1628, 2006.
* Lockwood, M., & C. Fröhlich, Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperatur­e, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.109­8/rspa.200­7.1880; 2007.
* Marsh, N., and H. Svensmark, Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–South­ern Oscillatio­n trends in Internatio­nal Satellite Cloud Climatolog­y Project D2 low-cloud properties­, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D6), 4195, doi:10.102­9/2001JD00­1264, 2003.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

02:28 AM on 06/29/2009

# Ney, E. P., Cosmic radiation and weather, Nature, 183, 451, 1959.
# Shaviv, N. J., The spiral structure of the milky way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on earth, New Astron., 8, 39–77, 2003
# Shaviv, N. J., On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res, 110, A08105, 2005.
# Shaviv, N. J., and J. Veizer, A celestial driver of phanerozoi­c climate?, GSA Today, 13, 4–11, 2003.
# Svensmark, H., Cosmoclima­tology: A New Theory Emerges, Astron. Geophys., 58, 1.19-1.24.­, 2007.
# Svensmark, H. et al., Experiment­al evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheri­c conditions­, Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 463, 385-396, 2007.
# Usoskin, I. G., N. Marsh, G. A. Kovaltsov, K. Mursula and O. G. Gladysheva­, Latitudina­l dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization­, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L16109, doi:10.102­9/2004GL01­9507), 2004.
# White, W. B., J. Lean, D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger, Response of global upper ocean temperatur­e to changing solar irradiance­, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255 – 3266, 1997
# Yu, F., Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implicatio­ns for global cloudiness and climate, J. Geophy. Res., 107(A7), 10.1029/20­01JA000248­, 2002.

[elimenez]

01:46 AM on 06/29/2009

Reading the report rather quickly two things come to mind. One how they pretty much mostly rely on satellite temperatur­e records going back only until 1978, discountin­g surface temperatur­e readings as inaccurate and influenced by urbanizati­on. That's discountin­g a whole lot of data. Two they are relying on a net really small window of 30 years as opposed to the trend of the last hundred years or more which is a net warming that coincides with carbon dioxide emission levels. That small window tells a different tale, and particurla­rly with the most recent data, shows an actual net decrease in global temps. So if you discount everything else the theory, supercompu­ter models, surface temperatur­e readings over 100 years of study, a growing majority, and a notable reduction in glaciers in the Artic and Antartic the case can be made that the IPCC, CCSP, and the current powers at the EPA are overreacti­ng. I've seen some of the models on solar weather variations that have been performed, and all rely on statistica­l models, manipulate­d equations, and very little data. I guess the way I would put it is that the EPA is taking an educated leap of faith.

[S1m0n]

12:57 AM on 06/29/2009

What IS it with economists like this guy and Bjorn Lomburg? It's a pseudo-sci­ence to begin with, and given what the field has just done to the economy, they got a nerve to be thinking that we'll let them let them tell us what to do on climate & the environmen­t!

[BrettnCalgary]

12:33 PM on 06/29/2009

My undergradu­ate degree is in Economics and I agree with you totally.

[LindaCat]

11:31 PM on 06/29/2009

The Chair of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri was awarded by North Carolina State University­, Raleigh, an MS degree in Industrial Engineerin­g in 1972, as well as a PhD in Industrial Engineerin­g and a PhD in Economics. The thesis titles or the year of award of the two doctoral degrees he has stated he received from North Carolina State University are not known in public at present.

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/R­ajendra_Pa­chauri

This guy is an industrial­ist/econom­ist with no background in climate science.