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

[fumes]

who knew?

global warming is GOOD for evolution and adaptability in MAMMALS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8115464.stm

[solarian]

how would you like venus weather on earth

[getoffmedz]

maybe sooner than we think?

[Frank Smith]

"A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

[ReedYoung]

And yet, 2008 came in 9th of all years since 1880.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/57966.html

If global warming is not happening, how do you explain the fact that all of the 11 hottest years have occurred within the past 13 years?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
That is a fact. Now, what is your explanation? How can you explain such an improbable, non-random distribution without global warming?

[johndtuttle]

L O L

Frank, honestly, do you ever actually read these things you post? Temperature records for ONE MONTH were in error in a small part of the Globe.

We are talking about trends over the last 100 years plus that one source of data error do nothing to rebut.

C'mon man, you can do better than that.

[verycold]

Just wanted to say that the actual temperature sites have changed considerably over the years. Have you ever seen pictures of the locations? Many were once rural locations and now are near densely populated areas, airports, waste treatment plants., etc.

I live rural and the temps at my farm differ about 10 degrees from the city, or airport reading.

I don't now what the truth is here, but I am certain the temps taken are very faulty.

[Frank Smith]

I did read that and I understand it. You make a valid point, but the incident points to a potential sloppiness/bias, which is serious.

I appreciate your comments because I've looked into the issue more as a result. I was skeptical going in, as I am about most things, and I remain a skeptic. I don't believe "the world is coming to an end" scenario is justified.

[pricespector]

It is simply unbelievebale that people are completely dismissing the fact that the EPA was pressured to essentially lie to promote political policy. I know it's tough to question one's own beliefs, but wow. I mean, doesn't it even make you question what you are being told? Come on, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it just the slightest bit possible that it might actually be a duck?

[ReedYoung]

We've debunked CBS "News" .com's reporting, below. Turns out, the same work had already been done, here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

[LindaCat]

It is unfortunate that a friend of mine is not here to put some needed perspective on this issue of science, politics, finance and the influences they introduce into one another by mixing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_E._Kay

In one publication she reviews scientific paradigms and how they come and go. From the MIT News Office - [She] traced the efforts of biologists, biochemists and information scientists to explain the genome as an information system written in DNA code. Dr. Kay showed how the "code" is not really a code and thus why cryptoanalytic techniques failed, and how the genetic "code" was eventually broken instead by biochemists who only reluctantly translated their work into the metaphor of code because that language had become the only way to get a hearing.

In another she reviews politics and the associated financial forces and their influence on the direction and evolution of molecular biology. A review to help motivate the reader-somewhat strongly worded but still useful.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Rockefeller-Foundation-Social-Control-Eugenics.html

One can take the templates she defined, shake them clear of 20th century molecular biology and impose them on the 21st century climate change issue. The perspective gained would be of immeasurable benefit to anyone who cares about this issue.

[johndtuttle]

You mean deny political policy in the form of sloppy work by a former Rand Corporation Economist with no qualifications whatsoever to comment on a Science Report other than being a Republican denier?

As compared to the unqualified Bush appointees that edited out Science because it disagreed with their exploit the planet as fast as possible political philosophy?

[LindaCat]

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC is a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/ipcc-bureau-tfb.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Pachauri

[ReedYoung]

page 6 of the rejected paper:
[
All this is not to argue that the GHG explanation of current global warming is wrong -- only that the climate system may be more complicated than our current understanding of it and that there exists more uncertainty than is often acknowledged. The important thing is to take these uncertainties into account in proposing an effective an efficient control approach rather than ignoring them and making guesses as to what assumptions to make as to climate sensitivity to increased GHG levels or adopting a single hypothesis that discounts the substantial evidence of the impact of solar variability on Earth's climate.

Given these major uncertainties, it would be very easy to conclude that very little could reasonably be said about how to value the economic benefits of reducing GHG emissions.
]

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 little memo from his superior that EPA has decided on the essence of its policy recommendation and Carlin's squabbling isn't helpful. He wasn't "suppressed" he was put in his place, as is supposed to happen to an over-ambitious 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.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

I'm beginning to be skeptical about the CAUSES of global warming.

I'm a life long environmentalists, I was even in the "Environmental Club" in high school. I know that every effort should be made to eliminate pollutants, pharmaceuticals and chemicals from our air, water, soil and food. I know smog is causing an increase in Asthma, especially for children, polluted water is destroying the ocean. I eat organic, have my own garden, filter all of my house water, double filter my shower water and quadruple filter my drinking water. I recycle, compost and use my bicycle when I don't have to drive. I say all of that to show I'm a happily dedicated tree hugger.

Yet, I know longer buy the global warming theory hook, line and sinker. Partly because of the shady individuals who are so adamantly pushing it and the agenda they are pushing that uses global warming as cover. However, most of my skepticism is due to the increased scientific evidence that links global warming to solar activity. One thing that makes me skeptical is the pollution and greenhouse effect correlation. If pollution is creating an artificial filter that keeps solar heat in, then why doesn't that filter keep it out to begin with? If pollution is the cause of global warming, then why are they (members of Obama's administration) proposing to use pollution to stop global warming?

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Look before you leap, some evidence....

Documentary "The Great Global Warming Scandal" http://documentaries2bseen.blogs.sapo.pt/13829.html

31,000 scientist deny man-made global warming
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508gwpetition.htm

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

http://www.dericalorraine.com/

Using pollution to solve global warming?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/obama-global-warming-plan_n_184657.html

[johndtuttle]

You can be as "green" as you want. No one argues that the Post Ice Age that we are in has seen a rise in global temperature. The overall reasons may coincide with an increase in Solar activity, they may not.

The point is that all credible current Science by Climatologists show that Man made emissions are ACCELERATING THE WARMING. It is not a question if the Earth is warmed by the Sun. It is a question of the consequences of how rapidly we are increasing we C02 content of our atmosphere and its additional effects on warming and what we should do to slow the rate before it is too late.

Re: "31,000 scientists deny man made global warming" is a straw man. Non-Climatologists are not qualified to make judgments about others research *especially when they have not even read the published research*.

You see, a real scientist first spends years educating himself in the required disciplines to even properly understand the research. Then he *reads* the relevant papers. Then if he is skeptical he designs his own experiment and/or model to create a credible rebuttal or points out the flaws in other peer reviewed journals to generate discussion.

The above petition means nothing from a scientific point of view and is only a propaganda tool.

[Frank Smith]

That was a great documentary. Yeah, all those scientists. The new equation of debate. Scientist + disagreement with the dogma = quackery.

At least this stupid bill will die in the Senate.

[ReedYoung]

"31,000 scientist deny man-made global warming"

Please list any of their work ON CLIMATE that has been published in a journal of professional, peer-reviewed scientific research.

[fumes]

i'm with you ems..

CO2 is a trace gas @ .038% of the atmosphere that sporadically traps and scatters lame long wave radiation. the big tipping point is ostensibly the third of that .038% that we unearthed. yeah sure!

while the globe can and has warmed and cooled despite any objection or contribution on our part..

i would like to see our soot footprint mitigated: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soot+melting+ice&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The political and financial machinations behind it are ridiculous, there's too much suppression of dissenting opinions and too big of an attempt to create a global tax for it.

When scientists lead the debate and not politicians, then we'll get all of the facts.

[ReedYoung]

When you look at geological evidence from millions of years ago, yes, you find that the Sun was the driver of temperature changes, and CO2 was a lagging variable. It increased with temperature, but slightly *after* temperature increased.

But when arguing causality, you must recognize the facts that carbon dioxide pollution from combustion of coal and petroleum for industrial and transportation purposes of humans (1) have never been a factor in the previous millions of Earth (2) that carbon dioxide is now being released EVERY YEAR at previously unprecedented rates, for any sustained phenomenon. As a result, the angle that all those deniers take, focusing on the Sun's influence on climate in the distant past, is absolutely invalid.

50% of all of humanity's carbon dioxide pollution has occurred in the past 30 or 40 years, "since the 1970s," during which time the Sun's radiation has oscillated steadily, rhythmically, about an easily identifiable mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
During the same period, global mean temperature has obviously been on an upward trend. Although the Sun's cycles show up in the temperature data, in high-resolution graphs, even there the Sun's impact from 1975 - 2009 are relatively minor irregularities on a slope that is certainly increasing.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

Doesn't that look to you like between 1945 - 1975, temperature sort of plateaued, and basically held steady, with minor fluctuations? But after that, wouldn't you say temperature is obviously trending upward?

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

No I wouldn't I find that there's a direct correlation between solar output and temperature fluctuation. Above I posted quotes from prominent skeptical scientists (there were over 650 in the report) who were included in a senate Environment and Public Works committee that don't agree with the theory as-sold.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

The facts show that the last decade has been cooling, which should be impossible if Al Gore has his facts straight. The rise of industrialization in China, India and Brazil would make a cooling trend impossible.

That points to a non-human influence.

[ReedYoung]

"If pollution is creating an artificial filter that keeps solar heat in, then why doesn't that filter keep it out to begin with?"

Good question, and reasonably easy to explain. Visible light has different colors because of different "wavelengths" and each different substance in existence has a "spectrum" (variety, basically) of emission and absorption wavelengths peculiar to that substance. There is overlap, of course, but each substance's *combination* of emission and absorption wavelengths (taken together, the "absorption spectrum" and "emission spectrum" of that substance) is absolutely unique.

Invisible light also has different wavelengths. Ultraviolet light, x-rays and harmful nuclear radiation, among others, have higher wavelengths than the visible spectrum, and infrared, which corresponds to heat, has a lower wavelength than visible light. Carbon dioxide will absorb infrared radiation just fine, but not emit it.

In addition, other wavelengths get converted to heat, through several steps. The easiest to observe to is the absorption of energy by plants, mostly of greenish light because that's what we have the most of in this Solar System, for use in their growth. They don't convert that energy to heat themselves, but the animals that eat plants do generate heat, and radiate it at infrared wavelengths, which then are less likely to escape into space as the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Thank you.

I understand that radiant heat has longer wavelengths than solar radiation. This is what makes a greenhouse work in relation to a glass enclosure. Yet the question is actually a two part question and it's the second one, in light of the first, that needs answering.

If pollution is causing (or excessively accelerating) global warming then why are they thinking of using pollution to stop global warming?

[shocktreatment]

"...One thing that makes me skeptical is the pollution and greenhouse effect correlation. If pollution is creating an artificial filter that keeps solar heat in, then why doesn't that filter keep it out to begin with? ..."

Oh my! This explains a lot. Not why you continue to assert that there is a debate in the orthodox scientific community about climate change being anthropogenic, but quite a lot, none the less.

The greenhouse gas array are fairly transparent to solar radiation, which carries the energy IN. the earth radiates energy OUT mostly as infrared.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1,: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space...the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum... Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

Too, too much. All that posturing, and you don't grasp this fundamental?

[research]

Global Warming, climate change or NOT, switching to rooftop solar is safer, cheaper, ends wars for oil and uranium, uses unused land, is silent, and the the fuel is free forever.

Rooftop Solar 3 cents per KWH. far cheaper than what you pay now.

peak solar in CA costs 80 cents per kwh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

[ReedYoung]

It's true that the economics of scarcity are hazardous on their own -- in addition to the dangers of global warming. The economics of scarcity are exactly why prohibition turns drugs from some individuals' personal problems into a widespread social problem. Considering the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars siphoned into the petroleum, coal and nuclear industries over the decades, both are equally the result of government policy as well. Alan Carlin's assertions are not merely unhelpful to getting those policies corrected, they are detrimental to the general welfare. He does not deserve to continue to collect a salary nor any other employment or severance benefits on my dime.

[Lilith33]

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

Did he work for the oil companies?LOL!

[Budokan]

Global Warming is real. Deal with it. People who say otherwise are often the same clowns who believe in Talking Snakes and that Noah gathered billions of species, so what do they know?

[VikingQuest]

Global warming has been real for a very long time, Minnesota was covered by glaciers . . . the question of man causing it or if there is anything that can be done is another question.

Something like the Climate Bill really hasn't outlined any expected changes in temps or climate if passed, just more taxes.

[fumes]

it outlines the taxes in greater detail than the return on said ''investment''.. sigh

[ReedYoung]

The "question of man causing it or if there is anything that can be done" has been answered. You have only yourself to blame if you really don't know that. Ignorance is not an adequate defense in public discourse against pending legislation any more than it is against pre-existing laws.

[ReedYoung]

About the economic risks that Alan Carlin's job was to analyze, he makes the false blanket assumption that "renewable is more expensive" in the short term. It is not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/renewable-electricity-is_b_162435.html

The "pay-back" or "break even" interval of renewable energy is well-publicized, by the coal, petroleum and nuclear industries. It turns out that in truth, clean energy with lower long-term costs is also more fiscally responsible in the short-term, meaning faster than any power plants break even, the solar panels and control system on a single family dwelling will have saved more than it initially cost. Factor in maintenance and upkeep costs (effectively zero for solar energy) and there is no contest. Burning stuff for energy is stupid.

[fumes]

say.. can anyone explain why ''global warming'' got dumped in favor of ''climate change'' if the big worry

about climate change is still that the globe is warming? no really.. what's up with that?

[mathme]

I think that the more precise label is finally being adopted in the vernacular. I've called it "climate change" when speaking more accurately for years now. "Global warming" just sounds scarier.

[TimnySlagle]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!

[ReedYoung]

I think of "climate change" more as a pander to the ignoramus' observation of more severe extremes, including winter storms and their abject inability to compute a simple statistical mean. The objection was based mathematically on the deviations from the mean, but since it originated people unable to coherently speak about simple freshman statistics, I disregard their complaints.

Global mean temperatures are increasing. I consider "global warming" a much more accurate, honest term than "conservative ideology" or "liberal media" or "Easter Bunny."

[onlinesavant]

"Climate change" was a right-wing meme created by linguistic contortionist Frank Luntz solicited by politicians on that side for the purpose(s) of mitigating the perception that "global warming" creates. Sadly, even Democratic (Not progressive.) representatives, Including President Obama, have started to use the meme instead of the more appropriate term.

[fumes]

thanks onlinesavant.. you too mathme

[mathme]

Heh, it's funny that I've heard strong STRONG proponents of human-caused/exacerbated climate change theory using the phrase about a decade ago. Warming isn't the final outcome of this-- in the long term it is thought that it will produce profound cooling after a heat spike. Climate change is, according to that model, more accurate.

[SamKazman]

Could it be because "global warming" can be empirically tested, while "climate change" is so vague that it's consistent with any set of facts?

[zaneblue]

This is beneath HuffPo. I mean, come on. I'm sure the only reason this bilge even got on CBS was because of their Big Oil and Big Coal advertisers. The article cites astrologers as scientific evidence.

If this was discussed here, it should have been through the lens of a blog like Joseph Romm discussing the oil industry's efforts to compromise the public dialog, instead of being treated like actual journalism.

Before reporting on global warming denialism, always check at realclimate first

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

just like we now check snopes before passing along questionable emails.

[mathme]

Astrologers? Where? :) I just went through the bib and must have missed that :D

[mathme]

This is absurd-- the guy isn't even a climatologist let alone a scientist. I noticed in the CBS thread that a lot of people were pointing out that the author is a Ph.D. (in economics!) and therefore knows enough to be critical of the scientific papers his colleagues publish. As someone who works closely with a number of Ph.D.s (while on the way to his own), I have to tell you that a Ph.D. means that you're very well read and skilled in a field or, more accurately, a segment of a field. There are doctors that I work with who know their own areas of expertise VERY well, but another area in the *same* field is a relative mystery to them and they sometimes come to me for advice in that area.

That is not a knock against them, they know more than I ever will about what they do and it's a mark in their favor that they recognize the things that they know they don't know (to paraphrase Rumsfeld) and would come to students for information or advice. But this author, an economist, is crossing over very, very far.

[MassInsanity]

Did you even read the article? He's been working for the EPA for 39 years. He could have completed 6 Ph.Ds in that amount of time. The way I see it, if you're going to raise taxes, you better have a fool proof premise of your reason for doing so. It's just too convenient that there's a lot of money that can be made in this Cap and Trade bill. Besides, any time the government says something is a good idea, and tries to pass bills in record time, who ends up paying for it? The tax-payers!

[dc2nm]

If he completed 6 Ph.D.s, they would have been listed. And no, just because you work at the EPA for 38 years doesn't mean you understand the complicated science of climate. It means you're an economist.

That's kinda like saying an accountant at Boeing has the expertise to engineer a new plane design. I don't care how long they work there...its not going to happen.

As a taxpayer, I'm tired of paying for stupidity like this. It will just cost more the longer we wait. Esp. with energy costs on the rise.

[ReedYoung]

It seems his assignment was to write on risk, from the economic perspective of his professional expertise. Instead, he presumed to disparage decades of scientific research on the basis of amateur (and horribly amateurish) websites like http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.comm" and http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htmm." On that thin foundation, he advised against a cautious approach to risk, in favor of a short-term consumerist approach to risk and he argued his points disingenuously, exaggerating uncertainties in many cases and concocting them in others http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/epa-may-have-suppressed-r_n_221792.html?show_comment_id=26280262#comment_262802622]. He should be fired without retirement pay, medical care or any severance benefits. The paper he submitted was fraudulent and if he was a scientist, he would have been expelled from any academic institution where he was doing his research, even if he had been tenured.

[mathme]

To be fair, wattsupwiththat was the location where an article from The Astrophysical Journal was published electronically (oh, I see that there are also original publications from that site cited as well). And honestly, I don't know Basil Copeland (who publishes on wattsupwiththat) who could be a well respected researcher... who knows?

I don't want to be toooo disparaging of publications that I'm not familiar with, but I think that the first part of your post covers what's really important here-- it wasn't his job-- I'd almost have to wonder if he was given some kind if outside incentive to produce a contrary document so that people could point at this paper published "within the EPA" to trick people who wouldn't be expected to look past the headlines.

I need breakfast.

[barkrudedog69]

We know are planet has been warmer and colder in our few billion year history. We know that the Axis has shifted. We know that we know about Pangea. We know about Dinosours and Mammoths. We know that we are burning the Dinosours in our cars right now. We will run out of fossil fuels and the Earth will correct our damage. We may wipe out a few anamials along the way or hundreds. If a astoroid crashing to earth that caused most of the earth to be changed and turned into either coal, oil or natual gas did not end life on earth and we have not done so at this point in burning fosil fuels then the only real reason to push for the next energy solution is to prepare for when we run out of fosil fuels because no one is going to stop using fosil fuels until the last dinosour is burned.

[ReedYoung]

"are planet" --> "our planet"
"dinosours" --> "dinosaurs"
"anamials" --> "animals"
"astoroid" --> "asteroid"
"fosil" --> "fossil"
"Pangea" --> "Pangaea"

Good grief! It's almost as bad as reading a paragraph of Carlin's 98-page paper. Almost.

[fumes]

say bark..

what's the pH of said dinosours?

[RomeoMD25]

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007

Lori Fenton at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and colleagues used a computer model to study the effect that winds have had on Mars's climate.

The team's results, published in this week's issue of the journal Nature, show that the decrease in Mars's reflectivity has caused a warming of 1.17 degree Fahrenheit (0.65 degree Celsius) between 1975 and 1995.

(Read related story: "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says" [February 28, 2007].)

The link between dust movement and global warming is likely to be unique to Mars and not something that could affect Earth, the scientists added.

Don Grainger is an atmospheric physicist at Oxford University who was not affiliated with the study.

"Unlike [on] Mars," he said, "the albedo of the Earth is governed by the occurrence of cloud and to a lesser extent by the presence of atmospheric aerosols [particles] and snow/ice cover."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html