the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Inhofe Got the Message – EPA Busted

Posted by Jeff Id on June 29, 2009

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into ‘Suppressed’ Climate Change Report

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

“He came out with the truth. They don’t want the truth at the EPA,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he’s ordered an investigation. “We’re going to expose it.”

I wrote to my own congresswoman demanding an investigation, of course she’s a liberal democrat who craves the power.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist — not a scientist — included “no original research” in his report. The official said that Carlin “has not been muzzled in the agency at all,” but stressed that his report was entirely “unsolicited.”

“It was something that he did on his own,” the official said. “Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up … a set of comments.”

Of course the unqualified chief tries to discredit his employee by calling him unqualified. Standard tactics from what I can tell. I doubt Dr. Steig will be requesting I take his matlab class in the near future.

Despite the EPA official’s remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn’t know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it’s clear “they would not be happy about it if they knew about it,” and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

“It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn’t want to lose my job,” Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland’s comments to him. “My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure.”

Alan Carlin is quickly becoming a hero in my eyes.

His private emails with the thinly veiled threats from his boss are at this link:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

His report which is critical of the EPA’s document is linked here

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

The report is quite reasonable although not technically perfect. He brings up many of the questions those of us who are skeptics know are being politically exaggerated. I wish Americans understood what was going on. We all want blue skies but this has nothing to do with science.

These people have the control and the stage so I hesitate to give them any more power. If you read this as I do however, it sounds like a statement from Ahkmaginidaad

“Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making,” the statement said. “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.”

They reviewed it — in private — and found it didn’t require discussion. Everyone else in America is allowed to comment and all comments are expected to be addressed. Carlin was originally one of the authors of the EPA report, now he’s not qualified.

The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration — only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhouse gases.

Well it’s my blog so I’ll point out that despite what this reporter claims it’s not the same, Hansen is an advocate playing scientist with fame and fortune to gain. Carlin is a non-scientist who is in danger of loosing his job.

Who’s anti-science Bush or Obama… Don’t say both ’cause one got it right.

42 Responses to “Inhofe Got the Message – EPA Busted”

  1. Plimple said

    If I were Carlin I’d want that report to stay suppressed. It’s an utter embarrassment. Not technically perfect? It’s utter crap.

  2. Jeff Id said

    I take it we have a disagreement.

  3. Matt Yule said

    I hope Mr. Carlin is ready for a high powered anal exam. If this story goes mainstream at all, he can expect the full “Joe the Plummer” treatment.

  4. Jeff Id said

    His boss already basically threatened his job, I bet he’s gathering receipts for his audit now.

  5. AEGeneral said

    #3

    It won’t go mainstream unless the media feels they can definitely use him to make us “deniers” look like idiots. I don’t think this has any legs, myself. Besides, they’ve got more important stories to…

    …OMG, Michael Jackson’s father got the kids! He got the kids!! Call the President! We need more change! More change!1!!!one!!

  6. Stan said

    Jeff,

    Check this out. It sounds a lot like climate science. http://www.aei.org/article/100695
    Of course, both have been completely politicized.

    It’s a looking glass world.

  7. timetochooseagain said

    1. You totally miss the point. If it’s so bad, why the fear of it? Is the EPA really so intellectually bankrupt to fear a “utter crap” report? Apparently so…

    Plus, the circumstance hardly made it easy to prepare a first rate or even half decent comment.

  8. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Maybe this will be the smoking gun to put light on the fact that suppression of the truth is every where!
    well ok, back to reality :)

  9. Hal said

    “The individual in question is not a scientist…

    I guess the really meant he wasn’t being paid to do science at the EPA.

    I didn’t know that after a BS in Physics, getting a PHD in economics disqualifies you from science.

    Ah well, we know this whole thing is political and will play out on that battlefield. Science be damned.

  10. Obama said that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase… claiming instead that “It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”

    Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ timeless wisdom:

    “The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

    …Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”

    And after the way they rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.

    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

  11. Obama said that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase… claiming instead that “It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”

    Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ timeless wisdom:

    “The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

    …Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”

    And after the way they rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.

  12. Terry said

    Matt Yule said

    I hope Mr. Carlin is ready for a high powered anal exam. If this story goes mainstream at all, he can expect the full “Joe the Plummer” treatment.

    He was interviewed on Fox News Live about 15 minutes ago (he isn’t a very good interviewee, btw), so I’d say it has/soon will go mainstream. And I agree on your assessment of the treatment he’s about to receive.

  13. dhogaza said

    And I agree on your assessment of the treatment he’s about to receive.

    How do you think plagiarists should be treated? With respect?

  14. timetochooseagain said

    13. Grow up.

  15. John M said

    dhogaza

    “How do you think plagiarists should be treated?”

    You tell me.

    http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm

    Be sure to scroll about half-way down!

  16. rephelan said

    dhogaza said
    June 30, 2009 at 7:06 pm
    How do you think plagiarists should be treated? With respect?

    Congratulations. I think you have just crossed the legal line of defamation, Mr. Baccus.

  17. Terry said

    How do you think plagiarists should be treated? With respect?

    Ask Tom Peterson.

  18. MikeN said

    This report doesn’t qualify as a scientific study, and probably gets a number of things wrong.
    Am I mistaken, or is he claiming that satellite readings of upper atmosphere temperatures don’t correspond to surface temperatures? Isn’t this something that has been found to be in error by the authors who first wrote about it?

  19. timetochooseagain said

    18. What do you mean by “correspond”? They are obviously not the same thing, so in that sense they don’t “correspond”. In the sense that the show similar rates of change RSS “corresponds” (actually the LT does but not, to my knowledge, the UT). However in point of fact they should “correspond” in that sense, upper troposphere temps should change at a different rate than the surface. In point of fact the rate of warming should generally increase with altitude, up to about the characteristic emission layer (where the infrared optical depth approaches 1-see Lindzen 2007). Globally this is by a factor of about 1.2 (models and short term fluctuations all suggest this). By this measure both satellite analyses yield trends less than the surface would suggest they should show.

    See especially:

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-345.pdf

  20. Peter S said

    AEGeneral

    #3

    LOL!

  21. Peter S said

    AEGeneral

    #5

    LOL!

  22. dhogaza said

    Congratulations. I think you have just crossed the legal line of defamation, Mr. Baccus.</blockquote
    Why, you know how to use google! Imagine that!

    The truth is an airtight defense against a charge of libel.

    Dictionary:

    “plagiarism

    the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one’s own. The fraudulence is closely related to forgery and piracy-practices generally in violation of copyright laws.”

  23. timetochooseagain said

    22. Once more: Grow up. That is hardly the mature way to behave. Good day to you madam.

  24. rephelan said

    In your case, Don, the only thing air-tight is your mind.

  25. dhogaza said

    In your case, Don, the only thing air-tight is your mind.

    People who know how to use google *so* impress me.

    Oh, links are provided at my source to the original doc and Carlin’s doc. You could try dropping the snark and show that he didn’t actually plagiarize Pat Michael’s site.

  26. timetochooseagain said

    25 Quit refusing to understand the point dumbass. No, you are just an ass. Grow up. Good day madam, good day to you and your thick ilk.

  27. dhogaza said

    Quit refusing to understand the point dumbass. No, you are just an ass. Grow up.

    In the grown-up world, plagiarism is not ok.

    You really think the EPA should be putting its stamp of approval on a plagiarized document?

  28. dhogaza said

    BTW this statement if false:

    Carlin was originally one of the authors of the EPA report, now he’s not qualified.

  29. timetochooseagain said

    27 You miss the point again. Go home madam, and grow up. This childish horse you are flogging is pointless.

  30. Mark T said

    Willful failure to understand such a simple point is what… intellectual dishonesty, correct? Alarmists have to beat down strawmen, argue credibility and credentials, and commit a multitude of other fallacies in order to make a point simply because they cannot address the big gorilla in the room: climate change is a political, not scientific, topic and this little incident is nothing more than further evidence of that fact.

    Mark

  31. rephelan said

    Actually, it’s not google and you are far too easily impressed. At the moment, Don, you are the only one floating this “plagiarism” balloon… ever wonder if maybe your handlers will let you take the fall? “Hey, Don, try this out and see how it flies…”

    “Don who? Oh yeah, we tried to be nice to him at RC and Open Mind, but he was getting to be an embarassment with his snarkiness and ad hominem attacks. We try to stick to the science, you see…”

  32. rephelan said

    Don:

    post your links here… inquiring minds want to know… and then take your outrage back to RC and let Gavin Schmidt know that you do not approve of intellectual dishonesty of the sort he displayed i8n the Harry affair with Steve McIntyre. Since you are one of Dr. Schmidt’s chosen ones, I’m sure he won’t [snip] you.

  33. papertiger said

    the next move

    How about exploring the possiblity of a referendum recall of the AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

    I’ll point out that global warming solutions are about as welcomed by the Cal public as a fart in science class.
    In 2008 for the first and only time global warming legislations were featured on the Cal ballot. Two propositions, one requiring public utilities to adopt the carbon restrictions imposed by the State Legislature on private utitlities in the State, the other imposing a ban on any fossil fuel exploration within the state, were both defeated by 60/40 vote ratio.

    Repealing AB32 would be such a loud public rebuke of the ruling class’ politics that campaign advertisement would be completely unnecessary. It would take on a life of it’s own.

    Initial funding and drafting of the bill would be the only hurdles. I;m thinking the Jarvis Gann organization or something simular (Heartland?) might be convinced to sponsor.
    Once the ball is rolling let the Ruling Party try and stop it.
    It would be the ultimate political ju jitsu.

  34. Nathan said

    TTCA
    What is the point?

  35. rephelan said

    Nathan said
    July 2, 2009 at 1:24 am
    TTCA
    What is the point?

    The point, dear Nathan, is that the EPA is relying on the shoddy, politically motivated “science” promoted by the IPCC rather than doing investigation of its own, suppressed the cautions of a man who was concerned that the lack of due diligence would redound to the discredit of an agency he had given most of his adult life to, and was threatened because his warning was not the message they needed to hear. The point, Nathan, is that the EPA is motivated by politics and not science, and that character assassination is the modus operandi of our new “guided by the science” administration. Disposable tools like Don Baccus, who is so easily impressed, are the instruments of choice.

  36. Nathan said

    Rephelan

    It was a garbage report. This has been outlined elsewhere.

    But hey, stick with your conspiracy theories if they make you happy.

  37. Jeff Id said

    #36 The report has problems for sure, but it isn’t completely faulty. There are real questions about climate models, new temperature data, cloud aerosols, the true damage caused by warming and other things. The warmers are so ready to throw it out and laugh at it, what’s irritating is that it works for people. You can say anything and a percentage of people will buy it. Cap and trade will create jobs- 19% of people said yeah it will. Where the hell did those idiots get dug up from?

    Are you honestly saying, that the flat in your face comment that the Administration has decided to move forward on endangerment prior to the end of comments (against the rules of the EPA) is not a pre-planned decision to move forward on endangerment????? WTF! The man had his job threatened (implied), more work assigned, his report shoved under the rug, and a directive to stay away from the issue.

    Be honest, that’s all I ask.

  38. rephelan said

    Nathan said
    July 2, 2009 at 4:00 am
    “It was a garbage report. This has been outlined elsewhere.”

    Good. No citations, no links and no response to the point of THIS article that the management of the EPA had decided in advance what the results of the endangerment would be, suppressed Dr. Carlin’s contribution and threatened him. You needn’t take my word for it:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner

    http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/cei-releases-global-warming-study-censored-epa

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/#more-8964

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

    The contents of Dr. Carlin’s report are in fact being discussed and debated, but the point to keep in mind is that each point he brought up does in fact represent the thinking of active, published scientists. Dr. Carlin’s point is that the science is not settled, new insights are being gained all the time and there is no consensus. More research is needed before an endangerment finding (or a hideously expensive and grotesquely repressive Cap and Trade Scheme) are implemented.

  39. timetochooseagain said

    The point is that the EPA could have said: “Look, this is clearly ‘crap’ you just threw together” They didn’t. They made some comments to the effect that it “wouldn’t help”…That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s a fact.

    BTW, jumping to accusations of conspiracy…an argument of ridicule…Alinksy would be proud of you!

  40. Mark T said

    Not just that, they also implied that the issue was already decided, i.e., they violated their own rules. The whole public comment phase was proven to be smoke and mirrors because of this. They did not care what anyone said since a judgment had already been rendered. This is part and parcel to the whole climate change scam in the first place.

    Mark

  41. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Since I hear President Obama and others refer to the control of CO2 emmisions as a matter of an immediate health issue like CO2 were some toxic substance of immediate cosequence, I would assume that many of the people who could have been involved in the control of papers on the effects of CO2 emmisions would not have been any better informed on the technical issues. Carlin’s boss is an economist and I suspect he well could have been clueless on the scientific validity of its contents just as he would have been about the contents of papers included or sourced to the report.

    If it were thought that the Carlin report was easily shown as being crap, what better way to promote the alternative view than by allowing it to be part of the overall report and having it shredded to pieces. I think one needs to be rather naive in matters of political policy to think that the politicians involved truly understand the science involved and that the science and not the politics is driving their decisions.

    Most of the politicians made up their minds on this issue a long time ago and based it on ideology. Those politician that were sitting on the fence were sitting there based primarliy on the immediate political consequences of their votes and being able to point to some concessions for their voting constituents. No conspiracies here just the same old, same old dumb ass politics.

  42. papertiger said

    I live in Sacramento. Keep forgetting it’s the Capitol of something.

    Turns out that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a bike ride away.
    Right now, Democratic legislators + state workers unions are campaigning to repeal Prop 13, and so HJTA is running ads against that campaign in a holding ground defensive action. Lots of people fall it that trap.

    I’m with Patton. Defensive fortifications are a testiment to the stupidity of man.
    Likewise defence against proposed legislation. Repealing Prop 13 would take a State constitutional amendment, and nobody except who work for the State want that.

    OTOH lots of people want the Gorite preaching via PSA, corporate arm-twisting, and heavy duty energy bills (with windmill and solar farm surcharge), to go away. Repealing AB32 would be like grabbing the Dems by the nose, and kicking them in the ass.

    Need some connecting the dots between California Global Warming Solutions Act and hidden tax on the public, but once the wording is right I’ll deliver it straight to Jon Coupal’s hand.

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: