the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Stifle

Posted by Jeff Id on June 24, 2009

Check out this story on WUWT.  The EPA is absolutely busted red-handed suppressing information for their upcoming regulation fest.  I wonder if the cries of anti-science will come?

The EPA suppresses dissent and opinion, and apparently decides issues in advance of public comment

Think what would happen if Bush did this.  The politics trump everything and are forcing me to change my mind about this corrupted science.

————————————-

Update:

Click on these email scans where Al McGartland basically threatens Alan Carlin with his job for working on this.  The database remark by his boss and assignment of more work for his efforts.

1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2

Read the whole exchange at this link here.


24 Responses to “Stifle”

  1. TCO said

    I checked out the guy’s publications. He has a lot of refernces to Heartland and Watts Up and the like. Also the content of the papers was very fluffly and conceptual. Not rich in either data content or deep issue analysis. Would advise you all not to hitch your wagons to this horse too quick.

  2. TCO said

    FYI:

    I know this will enrage you all, but please read the most releavant insight which is that Carlin is not really a physical scientist.

    http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/

  3. TCO said

    Examiner author backtracks…

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-the-EPA-suppressing-or-withholding-information-on-global-warming

  4. TCO: C’mon, you know GRIST’s agenda. Have you read Fuller’s updates?

  5. Stan said

    Wonder why the EPA should be considered any different than the rest of the scientific community. Gore and Schneider have already spilled the beans that they lie. The IPCC has been exposed repeatedly. The most recent assessment in the US has been exposed by Pielke and others. We know that the polar bear decision was a joke. We know that the second hand smoke decision by the FDA was a travesty of science. We know that the CDC lied about AIDS.

    Why on earth would anyone trust supposed “science” from government?

  6. LeeW said

    TCO…

    You are missing the larger point. I do not believe that this has anything to do with what Carlin’s background is or his scientific ability. Frankly, it doesn’t matter who wrote the comment.

    The key to this is that McGarland is flat out admitting that the administrator and the administration had already made their decision regarding endangerment. And this was three months prior to the close of comments! That would be akin to saying that the administration is putting a bid out to contract but decided before the bids were even due who was going to win!! This is bordering on a violation of federal statutes.

    Between the Walpin fiasco and now this coming to light, I shudder to think of what other surprises lurk in the dark!

  7. LeeW said

    Stan…

    I actually have history working with the EPA and have submitted comments on past pending regulations. I can say that this is not the norm for them. They are typically very thoughtful when it comes to adjusting final rulings based on comments received. But those are typically mundane regulations having to do with real environmental issues like due diligence and remediation!

    I didn’t expect a change in the final ruling, regardless of who commented or what they had to say, but I am flabbergasted at the audacity of McGarlind and even more stunned at the ‘money’ quote!

  8. Billy Ruff'n said

    TCO, you were into this thread so fast, and so hard that one has to wonder what your afraid of.
    Chill, dude! The truth will out.

  9. Billy Ruff'n said

    TCO,
    I guess your advice to those here gathered is:
    Carlin is not a “scientist”.
    He’s not “peer reviewed”.
    Therefore he “doesn’t matter”.
    Ergo, we should “move on”?

  10. TCO said

    8. It’s no conspiracy. I was working from home cause of doing some non-work stuff and having a strong cold (seems to be one going ’round. One of my team-mates had it really bad coughing and stuff.) So I goofed off.

  11. TCO said

    9.

    He’s not a natural scientist.

    He uses a lot of references to websites rather than papers.

    When I read the papers, they have a lot of fluff and not that much real hard core analysis or data.

    ——————

    It’s nowhere near dismissing him. Just something that you naturally do when you read stuff and evaluate it. It’s just a factor.

  12. Konrad said

    TCO,
    I understand the individual in question (or under ad Hom attack)has a physics degree. Mine is industrial design hon 1c. Could I ask what degree you have? It’s just a factor ;)

  13. TCO said

    Come on, do you really need to know my degree to evaluate me? With all the time I post here? No.

  14. Whatever Carlin’s qualifications or lack of qualifications, if you bother to look, he’s listed as a co-author of the TSD. If he’s unqualified for whatever his contribution is supposed to be, then he shouldn’t have been a coauthor in the first place.

  15. JAE said

    Some of the commenters here seem shocked about this. They need to be brought into the 21st century, where ANYTHING is OK, if you are a liberal. For example, lies are OK, because (1) morality isn’t an issue, because it’s all relative; (2) you are protected from retribution by a liberal Administration and Congress. You can get in trouble only if you do something equivalent to raping or killing someone who has “minority” status or say something that is not PC (like “War on Terror”).

  16. George Jetson said

    How does that work?
    TCO tells us not to “hitch our wagon” to Mr. Carlin because he is “not really a physical scientist”, but wants us to believe his own writings eventhough he (TCO) will not tell us what his degree is in.
    He also tells us that Carlin’s contents are “not rich in either data content or deep issue analysis”, but TCO’s comments lack data content.
    Last he criticizes Carlin for using a lot of references to websites, right after he provided two links to websites.
    TCO, you and Al Gore have the same amount of credibility.

  17. Page48 said

    This is business as usual for EPA.

    Think of them as an arm of the Environmental Industry instead of as an agency of the government dedicated to protection of the environment and/or the people.

    The environmental industry has been all about the money for as long as I have dealt with it. This is just the first time that EPA’s rulings are going to effect all Americans, so their methods are getting the scrutiny they’ve always deserved, but never had. I doubt that it will matter, though.

  18. TCO said

    14.

    I admit ignorance to the acronym TSD, and the phases of reg reviews. I had the impression that Carlin is trying to stick his amateur science stuff into the process. He is better qualified elsewhere.

    Also, whether he’s a co-author of something is sort of a tit for tat childish argument versus a factual one. Look at the guy’s publications. Skim some of them. He is LIGHT on physical understanding. Hasn’t published physical stuff himself, doesn’t do a good job referencing literature, references fluffy sites like Wazzup, and doesn’t have deep or skillful issue or data analysis. Just LOOK at the guy’s publications. They’re LIGHT.

    17. The don’t hitch your wagon is just saying don’t expect some wonderful piece of work to emerge when this study gets released (and it will). Look at the guy’s papers and you can see the level of quality. If you want to protest the process, fine. The indication of pre-judging, fine. But don’t hitch your wagon to this guy in terms of content. Don’t even hope. Because he’s light.
    :)

  19. TAG said

    re 18

    As usual TCO has missed the point

  20. EPA’s Technical Support Document for the Endangerment Finding. This is not incidental to the matter under discussion.

    Again, if Carlin’s credentials are lousy, then that speaks to the report as well.

  21. TCO said

    20. When you say he was co-author of the TSD: how many authors were there and how much was Carlin doing? Was he leading or co-leading or the main or a main writer? Or just one more guy on a big list? And perhaps his contribution was in a very isolated area separate from where he wants to file a minority report. Also, a report done by several people is never going to have 100% unanimaty. That does not mean that every author should get a minority opinion.

    You should be capable of disaggregating the issues, Steve. Read Carlin’s papers and then make a judgement on his ability to supply significant physical science input. If you want to extend this to saying it was wrong to have him on the report as well, fine. But HAVE A TAKE.

    This kind of rhetorical game is disengenuous. It reminds me of when Loehle paper came out and your response to it was “well if it’s wrong, the same faults apply to Moburg”. Well that was a BS answer…since you had already years before full stop said Moburg was crap. But we didn’t hear any of that with the Loehle reception. Not a critical review of the paper, which you were well qualified to do and which would have eviscerated one of your “side”. Instead an oblique comment on equivalence across events rather than the more important observation of quality on the item at issue.

  22. JAE said

    TCO: go to Anthony Watt’s site to see just how far your intuition has misled you in this case.

  23. rephelan said

    In the event you missed it, CEI has actually posted a link to a purported draft of the report here:

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

    Dr Carlin’s Website is here:

    http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

  24. Kenneth Fritsch said

    It would appear that it is Al McGartland who is passing judgment on Alan Carlin getting space for his views. McGartland is an economist and not a scientist who was recently at the center of controversy on lowering the “worth” of a human life from $7 million something to $7 million something else. Since invoking regulations depends on costs versus potential benefits lowering the human life cost would make the regulation threshold a bit more difficult to meet.

    Anyway it is obvious that this stifle is political and that it indicates that the Obama declaration of an open government was merely a marketing ploy. That politicians are hypocritical and in a bipartisan fashion, gains credence with this evidence and that of a certain governor who recently had to confess his transgressions in the SH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: