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

[jacobomorales]

Yeah, yeah, more neocon bs coming out!

[OliverTwist]

Very bad science. Not really science at all. They should fire the guy. It would free him to work for the oil industry or something.

Better yet, make it into a jpurnal submission and let the journal send it out for peer review. Heh! The comments - if they even bothered - would be a wonder to behold!

[mobedda]

Gee, so an economist who played scientist too much was told to go do something else? Newsy news!

[BlackbirdHighway]

The EPA was correct to stifle this guy. All of his assertions are very easily debunked. For instance his claim that the world has cooled in the last 11 years is absolutely false.

Of the top ten warmest years ever recorded, eight have occurred since 2000. The coolest year of the 2000's was still warmer than all but one of the 90's. Averaged over the decade, the 2000's were warmer than the 90's, the 90's were warmer than the 80's, the 80's were warmer than the 70's.

All of that points to the inescapable fact that the Earth is getting warmer. Yet all over the Internet, you'll find false claims of cooling. The EPA doesn't need to add to the insanity

[mamacat]

If one goes straight to scientific journals for one's information, there is no debate any longer about what is going on with green house gases and our atmosphere; they are increasing exponentially and the atmosphere is in danger of becoming suddenly much warmer and less hospitable.

In the public media, just about every time an article comes up claiming that a 'scientist' has said that there is no such thing as global warming, or that global warming is not dangerous, it turns out to have been funded by Big Oil.

Among climatological scientists, there really is no debate, and there hasn't been any for over ten years now, because the observations and evidence are overwhelmingly in favor of the theory of global warming. This story seems to me to be similar to someone reporting that they have found a scientist who refutes the theory of evolution - very entertaining, and worth reading if just for a good laugh, but hardly scientificly relevant.

Our free speech laws mean that anyone with the money to push a story can find someone else in the media to conduct some sympathetic anti-global warming reporting. But, just because an industry is able to pay to get some sympathetic press coverage, that does not entitle them to have their claims substituted for genuine scientific research.

[Kula]

Incredible.
You forget the most important thing. There hasn't been any warming for almost 10 years.

[GearRatio]

Well, judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The data for the past 10 years shows flatter than the data for 1989-2000, but not as flat as 1980-1989. And the 5 year running average curve (in red) doesn't much look like a decline....

[hauty007]

Do you think we paid for the REPORT, duh,

Climate shimate, perhaps taxes in the Rust Belt will give the USA a big smiley FACE. How can you pay for all the SPENDING, maybe tax Corp., they'll close up, maybe, the STATES, they'll go bankrupt, maybe you? Do you think the USA has been hijacked, maybe not, some may.

Look at the list of Congress up for 2010 Re-election and you determine your own fate.

List/ LINK all CONGRESS up for 2010 re-election go VIRAL, share, bookmark
http://teapartypatriots.org/Members%20of%20Congress%202010.xlsx.htm

[Phenlandia]

Ah, CBS. Perhaps Global Warming is being caused by all the tamales being eaten by the illegal aliens who are coming to mint Ameros for the North American Union?

My biology professors were lifelong globetrotting naturalists who actually read scientific literature and had decades of field experience on every continent. If they know without any doubt that global warming is real and man-caused, I'm taking their word over any businessman, politician, or corporate "news" story.

[dems08]

did taxpayers pay for this bunko report?

[dems08]

he wasn't a scientist, he's an economist.....

why was he reporting on global warming for god's sake?

[HisPetGoat]

I'm a scientist with about 20 refereed journal articles published. I just scannned that "report" but I think it's very poor. E.g., few of the sources were peer reviewed works. I think Al McGartland is shilling for someone.

[OliverTwist]

Same here.

[VoteLibertarian]

then why do you take Al Gore's word for it?

[quad11]

We don't. We look at the scientific concensus. To ignore that and just follow some hack's personal opinions would make us dittoheads.

[AuntSally]

You don't ... at first. But then two points become clear:

(1) Al isn't contradicting the conclusions of the relevant scientific community, he's publicizing them
(2) Al's sources DO check out.

[USA2Sense]

MAY??? have????

[James Croteau]

Thanks for the link, Aunt Sally. Skimming the above piece, makes me wonder about CBS News reporting, on a non-news item.

It also makes me wonder about the EPA official, Al McGartland. Think he should of sent him a pink slip, and had security watch him clean out his desk. I can't think of a better place to clean house, then by getting rid of the flat earther's.

[OliverTwist]

He should be fired - but probably won't be.

The real issue here is why is CBS - which has the ability to talk to real scientists - pushing this story which seeks to valid bogus science?

[quad11]

Self-interest. Conspiracy is a much juicier story than the usual political spinelessness about being afraid to pass painful but necessary legislation. Now, if there was a Michael Jackson connection, THAT would be truly newsworthy.

[CGI]

I'm all for realpolitik when it comes to this issue. I don't care what it takes, just make it happen.

[Schvenzlerman]

There is no room for diversity of scientific thought on this matter! The debate is over and all global warming deniers, no matter their scientific qualifications, should be imprisoned so that they cannot spew their vile opinions. The Earth could die.

[LeLoup]

Diversity must be based on facts...this report had way too few of them to be even considered.

[litelife]

and you are saying this 98 page report that was sent to the epa was lacking in facts.....

http://dhdc.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=752

[AuntSally]

Scientific debate occurs in the scientific literature. No where else. Deniers are encouraged to make their case scientifically and subject it to peer review (a relatively low bar, by the way), or accept having their "science" not taken seriously.

As for credentials, these guys are not climate scientists. One is an economist, the other a lobbyist.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

[kgb999]

The "economist" is also has a physics degree from Cal-Tech - the primary degree for many of the scientists running the site you link to (from various institutions). This kind of sloppy dismissal is only going to give the republicans ammo.

[Pquilson]

The earth will die. in a couple billion years when another meteor hits it.

[AuntSally]

A "report" skeptical of Global Warming from... wait for it... an economist and a conservative lobbyist. Have a read, folks...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

And in a related note, both Nancy Reagan's astrologer and her financial adviser remain skeptical of her late husband's Alzheimer's disease...

[Osusuki]

Thanks ever so much for posting this link. I was resolved to slog through the googlesphere for a couple of hours figuring out how any of the CBS report could be based on sound climate science, but now that I know the opposite is the case, I don't have to. Again, thanks for helping me calm down.

[kgb999]

a) the Carlin report is quite likely bunk ... we don't know at this point because they decided to suppress it instead of allow it to be debunked. Bad political choice.

b) that site you are linking to seems to be pretty biased and willing to selectively highlight facts while ignoring others to advance their position. They are also reviewing a "draft" report - we have no idea to what degree the final product matches the report they are reviewing (could be identical ... could have significant changes).

c) Big money is on the table - institutions on both sides of this debate will be making or losing billions based on the political act of "forming a consensus". They are ALL fighting for money.

[AuntSally]

No KGB, you're missing the point.

The report did not come from climate scientists, and it references "science" that has not been through the basic peer review process.

If an economist and a lobbyist want to issue a report on policy implications, that's one thing. But an economist and a lobbyist should not be issuing a report on climate science -- and if they do, the EPA certainly should not be taking it seriously if it references no peer reviewed studies.

As for RealClimate, this is a rather substantial group of bona fide climate scientists. If you spend some time reading the myriad posts, you'll find they are indeed biased -- toward what the actual science, performed by actual scientists -- has to say.

[AuntSally]

A side note on the money thing...

I've heard this argument before -- that the scientists are hyping this to get money. Two things don't square with this position:

(1) In science, if you want money, you play up uncertaintly, not certainty. But of course the climate science community has been doing just the opposite.

(2) On the questions of consequence for policy -- Are we warming, why, and what are the risks? -- the climate science community is shouting rather loudly, and with one voice, that the answers are in. No further research required. Give the money to the renewable energy industry.

I'm sorry, but you'll have a hard time putting the motives of the scientific community and the fossil fuel industry on the same level in my book. ..

[fireW]

Republican economists & lobbyists would declare there is no real scientific evidence to support the claim that water is wet. The fact that they're just plain wrong regarding their global warming denials doesn't matter; these big-money agenda driven liars have said it, and therefore it must be true. Right.