On the Public Dime, a Grating Whine

From the industry global-warming denial mouthpiece Competitive Enterprise Institute to CBS News to Faux News (with a guest ranting by James Inhofe (R-Exxon calling for a criminal investigation), the Global Warming denial "news of the day" is about supposed suppression of a "report" 'proving' that global warming isn't real by EPA economist Alan Carlin.

Carlin's supposed report is an absurdity, with a litany of citations from one anti-science syndrome website and sufferer after another.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I'd suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail....

And reporting that Carlin was surppressed is, well, an absurdity.

As Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, wrote in an email:

They are trying to invert the "war on science" narrative.

Problem is, you would have to have actual science on your side in order for this to work.

Let's let the Obama Administration speak about this for a moment. EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy's on the record statement.

Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.

The opinions were considered and studied ... too bad that they were false and blatant examples of anti-science syndrome.

This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making.

It really is sad that CBS News allowed itself to be played, so well, by the global warming denier crowd, helping to give legitimacy to an invented story.

Try speaking with scientists at EPA and it is hard to overestimate the shift in morale in that institution. There are people who have dedicated their lives to public service, to supporting the interplay of science and policy making on environmental issues, who were beaten down for eight years. And, this isn't solely a 'partisan' issue, as two acquaintances are relatively senior in the civil service at EPA and Republicans. One said to me the other day, "I had forgotten what it felt like to be happy to go into the office. I'm almost literally bouncing into the office. We're being taken seriously in a way that I don't think I could have imagined a year ago."

These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. 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.

Okay. So (1) not on the study team; (2) not on the review team; (3) not a scientist; (4) still listened to.

In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the Endangerment finding.

Oh, and despite 1-3, (5) some of his material influenced the Endangerment finding.

Additionally, his manager has allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. And this individual was granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science.

About this, I decided to pulse some sources and find out just how much he has been able to do related to climate-change denial on his salary, despite the fact that he is not a climate scientist and climate change is not in the position description for which the American public pays his salary. I was informed that:

• He wrote his diatribes (excuse me, opinions) on agency time


• They were published at least four times in non-atmospheric science journals and had multiple working papers published in his department's website.


• He participates in a climate-seminar series and is able to invite other deniers to speak


• And, he gave at least four presentations as an EPA employee (at an EPA seminar before other EPA employees, twice to university conferences (paid for by you and I, as EPA paid for the costs)

Now, considering the work, from what I can tell there is only one Carlin worth listening to about Global Warming.

Comments

[RichZ]

Seagull certainly has a lot of anger towards anyone who dares question his faith

He does zero to dispute the science, does his best to attack Carlin's Integrity-
and defers to 'Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science' and 'realclimate.org' as voices of reason! No political bias there then!

He cites Carlin's lack of scientific credentials,
You're right, his degree in physics from Cal Tech and a degree in economics from MIT
don't hold up to Al Gore's PHD in diddley squat!


As Carlin quite resonably points out, the EPA report omits the fact that the Earth has been cooling &
very notably over the last two years, with no warming for 11 years. The Satellites show no pattern of warming on record- (unlike the urban weather stations the IPCC prefers) which is more reliable scientific data? And the more we learn, the more we realize that Co2 is not a major driver of climate.
Pretty obvious now looking back, considering the Ordovician ice age had 4000 ppm Co2!!

Care to dispute any of these points with your scientific credentials?

The lib. politicians and their followers are fighting an increasingly desperate losing battle against science.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Okay, let's take one example:

Ordovician ice age: scientific research reported out three years ago from Ohio State University:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, ... Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. ... The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

Nice to see how it is no longer "not warming for 10 years" and now "not warming for 11 years" as you seek to use 1998 as the base year. 1998, as you are certainly well aware, was a hot year, hottest on record. Global Warming is not one smooth line, and it is not solely human activity, but human activity superimposed on top of natural change / cycles. Climate analysis typically looks to a 20 year period, as a minimum, for studying. Try putting in 20 years, 30 years and draw honest lines about trends.

Etc ...

You are peddling deception and deceit.

[RichZ]

The Ordivician ice age in fact did not begin with low Co2- far from it!
The levels were at least 10 times today's.

http://biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg
http://www.opentemp.org/_results/_20071024_Phanerozoic/co2concentration_vs_temp.png

98 was hot and 78/79 when the sat. measurements began was cold
now we are cold again, the entire variation being well within natural fluctuation.
Anything else you hear is from interpreted 'land based data' that incorporate the well known urban heat island effect to produce the desired result.

Sat. data;
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/_/rsrc/1235495096944/files/UAH_LT5.bmp

now plot Co2 on that chart- any correlation?, no?
how about this chart

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif


I've been called a lot worse than 'deceptive' 'deceitful' 'absurd' - suffering from a syndrome etc for stating facts. I don't think you're stupid or absurd or deceitful, you are probably intelligent and well meaning, you're just wrong. You have choosen a team to get behind and you are happy with that because you identify with the ideology. But if you are really interested in the truth- science is the only way to go- even if it hurts.

'Peddling' implies some financial gain? You're skepticism should be turned to Al Gore,
or Gov'ts that stand to transfer trillions of dollars from the private to public sector based solely on their own 'consensus' not science. No profit motive there?

[SteveMI]

As a denier Carlin is in good company,

As Galileo denied the geocentric view of the solar system
and Darwin denied creationism

Eventually the science wins out, no matter how powerful the political institutions, be they
the catholic church or the UN

Like most believers, the author has a very well defined political ideology, but displays no
actual understanding of the science himself, the words of like minded political institutions
constitutes proof for him. I'd love to hear him explain his own understanding of how Co2 will cause runaway global warming!

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Sigh ... Not going to put 10,000s of words into every post, to revisit work already done multiple times over.

Want to understand the absurdity and mediocrity of Carlin's work? Check the material at the links in the sentence beginning "Carlin's supposed report ..."

Wow. I always love when anti-science syndrome sufferers compare themselves or their icons to Galileo and Darwin. (What is impressive in this case is to have Darwin pointed to when so many global warming deniers also deny the Scientific Theory of Evolution.) In this case, it is even more aggressive, because you are suggesting that Darwin and Galileo would reject the weight of evidence that is, with every passing day, adding more substance to the human role in driving climate change. In fact, I think both would have far too much respect for the scientific method -- and they would study, absorb, develop the data rather than seek to distort and twist it to fit an ideological mantra.

[SteveMI]

The point of mentioning Galileo and Darwin is that real science is far more powerful in the hands of a single person- than any political or religious ideological 'consensus' however large and powerful.

I think they would examine the science itself- and utterly reject the consensus of clearly political institutions,as they did in their time.

Real science involves principles like accurate measurement, repeatable experiments, reliable outcome prediction.
These things exist for all kinds of wonders like Nano technology, quantum physics, cosmology etc, but not Ghosts, Esp, Bigfoot or Global warming.
That is why the latter are controversial, they lack scientific self evidence.

One of the most important principles of science is never to be dogmatic, always question your own studies, every theory should be falsifiable.

Read some of the first pages of Origin of Species, Darwin's own doubt was a crucial part of his strength as a scientist. And Galileo died more uncertain of the truths he uncovered than the Catholic church was of their beliefs.

To have such certitude in a theory like global warming with so little science behind it, is a sure sign of faith based belief.

Or please prove us wrong, give us some indication of your scientific understanding of (problemat­ic/runaway­) global warming?