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

[William1950]

all politicians will only tell you what they need to use for whatever special interest group they are trying to impress at the time... ( and they will hide any inconvenient facts..)
the climate issue is used to incite fear and a willingness to give your money away.
If our Government were serious about wanting to promote climate change through lower carbon usage they would give credits to individual homeowners for installing solar panels now on every home... they would push for small point of use natural gas powered generators in back of each home.. they would push for small wind power units to be on each roof...
But that would cut money from the huge centralized power companies ... that would take away the new energy futures market that will spring up now to enable wall street speculators to dictate the price of your natural gas and electricity just as they have been doing with your gasoline...
watch your pocket books boys and girls...

[IndieBlue]

From Egyptian:
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." ...

"FACTSHEET: David Wojick
DETAILS

Contributing Editor to Environment and Climate News
Host of climatechangedebate.org Science adviser to the Greening Earth Society Editor of WashingtonPest.com News analyst for Electricity Daily

Wojick is a consultant to industry and corporate-funded groups such as the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. His clients have included several government agencies, trade associations such as the International Pest Management Association, and corporations ranging from U.S. Steel Corp to CitiBank. Source: http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/clients.html"
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11744

"David E. Wojick is a well-known and vocal climate change "skeptic", with strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunct coal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society. "
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojickk

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

That doesn't mean he's biased.

Is he a skeptic who's paid by corporate interests because of his skepticism or is he paid to be skeptical? I don't know, I doubt you do either

But what about the other 399 - are you trying to say all of them are corporate hacks?

and are you saying none on the man-made side are corporate hacks?

There are legitimate, uncompromised scientists on both sides of the debate - that's why the debate is still open.

[dc2nm]

Yes it does.

[ReedYoung]

"Is he a skeptic who's paid by corporate interests because of his skepticism or is he paid to be skeptical? I don't know, I doubt you do either"

If you'd post his published work on climate change, that would clear it right up.

[S1m0n]

Give Mr Carlin our thanks for his conribution, but tell him that we're not taking climate change advice from economists this week

[ReedYoung]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
quote:
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007.
/quote

Egyptian Mystery School and other deniers, all that counts is peer reviewed studies. Have you read those? Which parts of the 231 page Senate report are relevant to which of Alan Carlin's assertions? Or your own?

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Do us both a favor and look up the definition of two words - denier and skeptic.

There's a huge difference, I'm not a denier. I'm skeptical about the severity of human influence on global warming.

[ReedYoung]

You deny all evidence of global warming and only parrot what you falsely assert is "evidence" against it. That is NOT skepticism, YOU ARE IN DENIAL

[ReedYoung]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
quote:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.
/quote

When you take away the hype, that means that to find just 400 scientists willing to say what the petroleum and coal industries wanted to hear, they had to scour more than two dozen countries.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The UN IPCC report had a mere 52 scientists.

You may have overlooked the 2nd and 3rd post, I'll re-paste it...
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

"70 PEER REVIEWED STUDIES"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of "greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

[ReedYoung]

"The UN IPCC report had a mere 52 scientists."

Not exactly. This .pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdff], which I found on this page http://www.ipcc.ch/about/how-the-ipcc-is-organized.htmm] will begin to show you that the 52 scientists who are named as authors of the (latest?) IPCC report are not the only contributors. Their work is based on the original research of thousands, or tens of thousands of scientists' research, spanning decades.

The denier community is, as you well know, just a few hundred. They are the spotlight chasers of the science community, not the iconoclasts.

[ReedYoung]

And I didn't overlook any of your comments, I ignored them because they're all irrelevant. Their published research is required. Science is evaluated, and accepted or rejected, based on peer review. The words "70 PEER REVIEWED STUDIES" are meaningless until you provide the links to those studies themselves.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The climate debate is not settled and most of you kool-aid drinkers fail to see the politics behind the persistent lie that the debate is over and that there is only a few dissenters.

The U.S. Senate Committee On Environment And Public Works have a report with over 650 prominent scientists that are all DISSENTERS in the "man-made" theory
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

A quote from the report says..
"Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

Some of these prominent scientists are in the posts that follow....

[getoffmedz]

Are you proud of your excessive comment award?

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Are you proud of your "picture most fitting the personality award"?

[IndieBlue]

While most of these scientists aren't trained in climate science, and many did not consent to being included in this report, several have complained of being misrepresented:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/not-sparta-inhofe-and-the-400/#400

Heck, that doesn't even compete with Browback finding 600 "scientists" who disagree with evolution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Actually everyone I pasted below are atmospheric/ climate trained scientists or experts in fields that contribute to the data atmospheric scientists use to make theories and conclusions.

[IndieBlue]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx

"I see Inhofe's "Gang of 650" also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany's Max Planck Institute, who's quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that's not controversial; all climatologists recognize that their models can't account for every last physical process. Inhofe's report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, "It is possible that all of them are wrong"—implying that he's casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he's not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC's emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario, and that's bad news, not good.

Anyway, Roeckner's as far as you get from a "dissenter": See this 2004 paper, which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link, where Roeckner is quoted in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. "Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate... Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase," he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. "Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones," he told ABC News in 2005..."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The debate is about the severity of man's effects on the climate, Roeckner thinks clouds are the biggest factor, not man...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
(He's quoted in the last two paragraphs.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Canada: IPCC Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

[ReedYoung]

Khandekar and the NRSP

Listed as an “Allied Expert” for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar

[ReedYoung]

Your Dr. George Kukla authored the "global cooling" article for Newsweek in 1975, which Newsweek spun into mass hysteria by not being clear that his predictions are for 4,000 - 5000 years from now.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/02/iceAge.html
quote:
Paleoclimatologists agree that during the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age -- a period known as the Holocene -- Earth has enjoyed a relatively warm and stable climate. During this period human civilizations blossomed into global dominance. The question now is whether another ice age is on its way? And if so, when?

At an international symposium convened by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory last October, the consensus answer was, "Yes, but not for at least another five thousand years." While that sounds like a simple reprieve, the issue of what the geologic record of past climate can tell us about the future remains both complicated and contentious.
/quote

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."