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

[RomeoMD25]

There is not a scientific consensus
that man is the primary cause of
global warming.
A group of scientists and researchers recently gathered in New York to sign a declaration stating that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change and called upon world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions. Over 19,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases activity is causing global warming. And John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls global warming the “greatest scam in history”.

People tend to forget Gore is a political with shady past.. ,the guy is a total fraud..

[mrmxyzptlk]

Link, please? Preferably to a story in a *reputable* media outlet that states that the event you describe actually took place.

[glockman]

Is it only reputable of you like or agree with it?

[ReedYoung]

600 "scientists," and those are a bunch of washed-up has-beens, also-rans, and never-weres. Try to find any published research any of them has done. Just try.

[xansam]

was the writer of this left over from the bush era? then who cares?

[glockman]

Sure, anything that does not go along with your myopic view of the world must be Bush's fault.

Do you have a critical brain in your head?

[mathme]

You're accepting the word of an economist about climatology because he agrees with your point of view, right?

[ReedYoung]

Leftover from the Nixon era actually, but that was also the original Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz era so it's pretty much the same thing, a culture of deliberately corporatist, racist corruption.

[Shovel4U]

Communists may have inadvertently advocated low-impact lifestyles (on the individual level, at least—the sprawling factories are another matter). "To each according to his ability, each according to his need." Think about it; an entire doctrine based on using only what you need, and doing what you're capable of. Now I'm not saying we should start rationing borscht and forcing people out into the fields against their will with a sickle, yet. But if you consider the principle in environmental terms, it means watching our consumption—buying only the foods and goods we need. Overconsumption creates a huge environmental burden in rich capitalist societies; we could take a cue from the communists and try to buy nothing more often.

[ReedYoung]

I'm not sure whether Marx, or Mao, or Pol Pot said it first but I do know that the quintessential communist saying goes:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[mathme]

Don't lump Marx in with mass murderers. What is wrong with that phrase, anyway? Or maybe there should be a capitalist version:

"From each what we can squeeze, to each what we can get away with."

[Golden111]

Keep on drinking the l i b k00laid progs........ the formally de-bunked global warming, now renamed 'climate change' theory is nothing more then a sham & deep down, you know it...the climate has been warming & cooling in cycles since the beginning of this planet.......... the latest Ice Age 10 thousand yrs ago had glaciers covering much of the northern half of the US..... I place much more credibilty in the sun spot theory then in Al G0re's get-rich-quick cap & trade tax scheme nonsense. 35 yrs ago Time magazine was screaming headline of the new ice age falling upon the world....the "climatologists" that the l i b s today have sooooo much faith in were right on about that one, weren't they?!??!?
Amazing what U progs can be told to will believe ....all to promote u'r ut0pian ide0l0gy........

[ReedYoung]

If it's just the Sun, then why has temperature increased to drastically since 1970 while the Sun has just rhythmically fluctuated, through three cycles, with global mean temperature higher at each Solar peak than the previous Solar peak, and for that matter higher at each subsequent Solar trough than the previous one?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/epa-may-have-suppressed-r_n_221792.html?show_comment_id=26280444#comment_26280444

[mathme]

It was *originally* called climate change, but "global warming" had a flashier sound. AFIK, from talking to sciency types, they've always considered it "climate change" because the long term effects aren't unidirectional.

[fumes]

i like that

[EducatedObserver]

It is indeed curious that so many of those in the global warming lobby are intolerant of dissent - a posture which tends to render suspect their true motives.

Forgive me for mixing metaphors but if Mr Gore - the principal advocate of "the meteor hurtling towards us" theory - is to be believed then, like Noah, we had better start thinking about building an ark.

Well Mr Vice President (and his associated disciples), the hard fact is that there are competing theories as well as priorities in the modern world. We must be pragmatic, despite the hordes of jeremiads in our midst.

By all means, let's be serious about the environment. But then let us be serious about hunger, crime, poverty, security and economic advancement as well.

[BrettnCalgary]

Nothing else will matter when our ecosystem changes faster and more drastically than our ability to cope.

[Truby]

Maybe this is the end of the world, maybe it isn't. Theories abound supporting either point of view but you make a good point in that believers appear intolerant of dissenters. Science is no where near prefect and to claim that one theory supersedes others without proving it is not science, it is religion.
Does science show change is occurring, yes. Has the cause been pinpointed, no. Should we be doing something to mitigate the potential damage, yes. Should we waste time arguing about causation, no.

[ReedYoung]

"Science is no where near prefect and to claim that one theory supersedes others without proving it is not science, it is religion."

We have proven it. Your denial and faux skepticism are irrelevant.

[ReedYoung]

I'm equally intolerant of people who disbelieve in 2 + 2 = 4, and for the same reason.

[fuzzwald]

Numbers do not lie, put people do. As you stand on the tracks, you can ponder whether or not that vibration is an oncoming train or an earth tremor. Either way, that train is still coming around the bend.

[Know-some-secrets]

By all means, let's not let something as inconsequential as the health of the environment and the future of the planent interfere with corporate greed and profiteering.

[DaleR]

I prefer my scientific information originate with world renown scientists, not a single EPA economist who took some physics classes in college.

While it is a fact that global warming exists I dont see veritable evidence tying it to human activity. I assume that burning of fossil fuels is a significant cause of climate change but I havent read about any implicit facts to prove the theory. I believe there is nothing we can do to slow global warming for political and social reasons.

That said, the right wing loons continue to hammer non factual nonsense to fight any kind of positive change in regards to energy policy. Why do they hate progress, why do they hate america?

The country that moves aggressively to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources will have an enormous economic advantage in additional to enhanced national security as reliance on foreign old is eliminated.

[glockman]

Read these:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/mit-scientists-baffled-by-global-warming-theory-contradicts-scientific-data/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

These are just a few (the first is even from the vaunted UN, world leader of global warming BS).

Think critically.

[ReedYoung]

And the second was cited in the article Alan Carlin is whining about having rejected. You think wattsupwiththat.comm" is a valid source for a federal government policy report? I think he should be grateful he didn't lose his job for gross incompetence and misfeasance for that steaming pile he wrote up.

[mathme]

Okay, you lump together a one-sided list of 3 articles and demand that people "think critically." Critical thinking isn't short hand for "agree with me," you know.

[ChicagoBob]

May, might, could have, possible, rumored, (the list goes on) are not words associated with reality, facts, and news.

"John Doe, an evolutionary engineer from Backstop University, issued a paper yesterday claiming pigs may learn to fly withing the next 20 years."

Cover that, CBS..

[glockman]

"Chicagobob, easily led follower of all theories that only support his views, proved wrong by several other studies that global warming is not man made."

Cover that, ChicagoBob.

[mathme]

No, because that person would have credentials to write in his field-- make John Doe an art professor and the analogy might be a little bit more apt.

[sacto92]

Why are you all so scared of opposing facts and viewpoints? First it was the global warming panic. Then when actual temperature trends didn't support that it became the climate change panic. Every opposing view is met first by attacking the credibility of the messenger and then sinks into accusing those who don't drink the Koolaid as being uneducated and anti-science. This guy gets attacked because he only has physics and economic degrees. I guess none of you have looked at Al Gore's academic resume. I'm all for taking action to protect our environment, but to think we will turn around global temperature cycles will prove to be laughable in a few years. Unfortunately it will probably only be after we spend billions of dollars and drastically affect economies around the world.

[johndtuttle]

Al Gore does not pretend to want to change Scientific reports to suit his bias like this Economist with no training in Climatology whatsoever. He only advocates and cites other Scientist's work and makes no attempt to make it his own.

[Golden111]

All Al G0re will become is the first cap & trade billionaire, if this phoney legislation ever does become law......... always was & always will be about a power & $$ grab..... all @ the expense of the US citizens & economies around the world.............. as read in another blog stream, even as big Al is warning that the oceans will be putting major cities partially under water, he has no problem recently purchasing ocean front property....change we can believe in........indeed

[mioffe]

Dear Mr. President, why we can't combine our efforts to fight global warming, be energy independent, change our transportation systems and Help Reform Healthcare?

In these efforts we could provide 100% of employment and 100% of insurance without any reform of Helth Care.

We need reevaluate our science of global warming:
We need 539 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. Water vapor as lighter than N2, O2, C2O gas is always going up to cloud level. There it condensed to water DROPLETS and released the same amount of energy, but it will be on 2-7 miles up of oceans and land level and IR radiation of that heat will escape to space more easely, than from ocean (land) level.
PROPERTIES OF WATER IN NATURE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GHG.

WE COULD GROW FORESTS TO INCREASE EVAPORATION OF WATER, BY SUN ENERGY.
GROWING TREES WILL PROVIDE US WITH CHEAPEST IN THE WORLD WOOD ENERGY.
IN SMALL POWER PLANTS WE COULD USE AS ELECTRICITY AS HEAT. IT WILL REDUCE NEED FOR ENERGY AT LEAST 3-4 TIMES.

IN CAR WITH WEIGHT 2000 Lb AND DRIVER 200 Lb 99 GALLONS OF GASOLINE MOVE CAR AND ONLY 1 GALLONS OF GASOLINE MOVE PERSON.

OUR CAR INDUSTRIES COULD BUILD ROADS WITHOUT INTERSECTION WHERE CART 20 LB WILL BE MOVED BY ROAD.

All these directions could provide 100% of employment and therefore solve our problems with health care.

I hope that stuff of HP will send to you this questions.

Michael Ioffe.

[wisecrack]

The sham keeps getting better all the time.

[johndtuttle]

read much?

[Frank Smith]

I do . . . .

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."

[motoboy]

This "cap & trade" stuff isn't about the environment, it's about the developed countries having a PR weapon they can use against the developing countries.

This stuff will be the future pretext for wars of aggression; the aggressor nation will claim he is doing it to save the planet. The real reason for the wars will be big money, just as now.

We will be continue to be an aggressor country. "We have attacked Brazil today because they are spewing too much greenhouse gas. We must save the earth." And the American people will rally to the cause.

[ReedYoung]

The power of positively giving up.

[wisecrack]

The rich will be able to bear the cost of polluting.

[Jond0]

Yes, done so that the anti-taxers have no platform. If oil/gas/electric/heating prices aren't high enough, too many poor people will be competing for limited resources with the rich. Isn't fair if rich people have to ration you know.

[ReedYoung]

Joe Barton,
Carlin exaggerated aspects of the uncertainty of global warming projections and findings and he fabricated others. A responsible approach to take toward risk is to err on the side of caution. Carlin and you advise erring on the side of reckless favoritism to the status quo in energy: coal, petroleum and nuclear corporatists. You are obsolete.

[slaxx]

what a surpirse. look people, all anyone cares about is money. do not fool yourselves. of course the EPA wants this, because the more "problems" and regulations, the more "work" they have. it keeps them in business and having a job.

too much of what the EPA and the DEC do does not protect the environment or anyone's health - they're just tax collectors. they create arbitrary rules for businesses that are completely unattainable so that they can do inpsections and fine businesses tens of thousands of dollars for trivial "violations."

[flamom4obama]

This Carlin guy isn't a scientist. He has a Phd in Economics.

It doesn't say in what capacity he worked for the EPA, but it definitely says he isn't a scientist.

So CBS has proof Global Warming is a myth because and economics major said so.

[slaxx]

i thought it said he was a physics major?

[johndtuttle]

Nope. He has an Undergraduate Degree in Physics (which does not remotely qualify you to comment on a EPA Climatologist Report) and a PhD in Economics.

The capacity he was working under was at the EPA was as an Economist. He is also a former Rand Corporation Economist (which explains his bias).

[ReedYoung]

[
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
]

[sacto92]

Yeah, that doesn't compete with Al Gore's degree in government. That's really the degree that makes you a climate expert.

[johndtuttle]

Al Gore is an advocate who advances and cites other peoples work. He, unlike Carlin, does not pretend to be a Climatologist while having no training in the Science.

[instagladiator]

I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are about global warming? Is it a natural cycle we're experiencing; or, is it man-made. Or maybe, just maybe, it's a combination of the two and if so, which plays the greater role in the cause, natural or man-made? Just asking.

[Jond0]

It's natural, and man is accelerating it exponentially.

[ReedYoung]

Although there's plenty to take issue with in the way he portrays the present state of global warming science ("The draft endangerment TSD is largely a dated document which relies heavily on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).), that can be dismissed as a matter of opinion, so I haven't bothered. Pages 1 - 2 of Carlin's paper are just intro babble, nothing cited or falsifiable, and page 3 is filled with charts, his misinterpretation of which is in the text that follows. When he finally gets into the substance of the argument for his recommendation to feign greater doubt about the extent of CO2-driven global warming, every word is a lie, including "and" and "the."

Below, I've annihilated the claims he makes on pages 4 and 5. I studied some physics, but I didn't get my Bachelors. So CBS didn't need a PhD on their staff to determine that Carlin was treated perfectly fairly when his paper was rejected by EPA. If he came to them with a "political pressure" story, that is no excuse to parrot his desired spin. If CBS had any journalistic integrity, what they printed would have been an "industry mouthpiece" story about the Exxon-sponsored lies he tried to tell us.

[mjt218]

If this turns into an issue, I really don't think it's going to matter how logical or flawed Carlin's paper was. The bigger issue is going to be whether people snuffed out his paper without any science based rebuttal.

[ReedYoung]

I showed in comments further down how badly his paper lacked basis in science. People "snuffed out his paper" for very good reasons; it sucks.