The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 7 (including environmentalism and energy)

[movielib]

New Thomas Fuller article about the EPA mess:

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-En...ng-and-trouble

Thomas Fuller
The politics, if not the science, is settled at the EPA. Alan Carlin, global warming and trouble
June 26, 1:04 AM

Alan Carlin is the economist and 38 year veteran at the Environmental Protection Agency whose report was stonewalled internally and so was not considered (or so he was told) in their decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. I spoke with him for an hour this evening.

At the end of the hour, the last question I asked him was what had motivated him to come forward with an almost 100-page report written in 4 days detailing the problems with the scientific claims for global warming as given by the IPCC (an early draft can be found at http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf). The report was not transmitted internally, and the emails released by CEI on Tuesday suggest to me that this may have been because the report did not support the previously determined conclusions desired by the new Administration.

In Carlin's personal view "The bottom line is whether or not the IPCC is wrong or right about the significance of increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in increasing global temperatures--it is amazing how few people have asked that question. What's happening in Australia (where a Senator Fielding is holding a 'mini-debate' with skeptical scientists and administration advocates of an Australian cap and trade policy) is fantastic--why can't we do that here? Models, good or bad, don't prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis about the real world. I'm dreadfully concerned that we may be taking an ineffective and extremely costly action, and after six years of working on climate change I might be able to help--but I'm not allowed to."

Carlin got his first degree in physics, before he turned to economics and remembers lunching occasionally with the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman while at Caltech, who told him that if you attempt to compare observations with a hypothesis and the observations don't fit, you can either change the hypothesis or ascertain if the observations are wrong. Carlin is convinced that observations of climate do not match the hypothesis that human-generated greenhouse gases are producing significant global warming in the real world. He adds ruefully that if the NIPCC report recently released by the Heartland Institute had been available in March, when he wrote his report, it might have saved him a lot of time assuming that it covers many of the same points.

Carlin's main concern seems to be that the Endangerment Finding (an official declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a danger to public health and welfare) may actually turn out to be a time bomb that may explode in the EPA, echoing the reasoning of our anonymous source as reported earlier today. As I wrote then, the EPA does not want to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air act without legislation limiting their regulation to the largest emitters. If the proposed new cap and trade legislation (which removes EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming gases) is not forthcoming, Carlin worries that it may well be very difficult for the EPA to carry out its mandate. His report was an attempt to have the EPA reconsider the science (which Carlin considers bad science), as despite the respectable trappings that cloak the IPCC and their reports, their hypotheses fail many observational tests in his view.

Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work, but is not at all bitter. He says that from a civil service point of view, his boss 'absolutely has the right' to give him new work assignments. "I still have a phone, I can still talk to people in my office," he says.

Carlin hastens to add that he did not turn over to the Competitive Enterprise Institute the emails that were published. "But when a reporter called Tuesday and asked me to verify them it became evident that CEI had them."

Carlin also assisted in the organization of a series of seminars with notable scientists in the field of climate science, including some notable skeptics as well as ardent "warmists." They were attended by an average of maybe 30 or 40 employees--but those employees only rarely included members of the workgroup that eventually would be charged with writing the proposed endangerment document.

Later we will discuss the science that Carlin wanted to present to the EPA. For now, he's another whistleblower who actually wanted to help the organisation that shut him out and moved him off the case.

Is this really how we want to run things?

Once again I want to thank Anthony Watts, Charles the Moderator and the rest of the crew at the weblog Watt's Up With That for their generous help in getting this story in front of you.

Glad to see Fuller is going to continue to follow through with this bombshell which is being will be ignored and likely will continue to be ignored by the MSM.

The following people should be commended:

Whoever at the EPA leaked the material in the first place.

The CEI for first getting it in front of the public and publishing Alan Carlin's report and the offending EPA emails.

Thomas Fuller for first writing about it. He was a little too gullible in initially buying the spin an EPA press secretary put on the story but immediately tossed that garbage aside (implicitly admitting he had been wrong) when that spin was shown to be garbage. He is now the closest thing we have to getting the story out on the MSM. His tireless work and doggedness is invaluable.

Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That? (WUWT) blog who has done massive blogging getting the story out.

"Anonymous," the EPA employee who commented on Anthony's blog, confirming the story and offering to provide background to Fuller.

"Charles the Moderator" at WUWT who facilitated getting Fuller and "Anonymous" together.

And most of all, Alan Carlin who has valiantly tried to inject some sense into the EPA endangerment procedures in the face of ignorant and dogmatically made up minds.

For anyone questioning Carlin's credentials, here they are:

http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

[movielib]

Waxman-Markey growing.

Over last weekend from 946 to 1201 pages.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,7298930.story

300 page amendment added today.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/2...-with-ap-spin/

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/Speci...hr2998_111.pdf

I'm not sure if there is any overlap between these two.

But no doubt, the growth is attributable to Waxman's giveaways to industry and agriculture in the home states of Democrats in the rust belt and farm belt to buy their votes.

[classicman2]

There will be 3 hours of general debate on the floor of the house. The Republicans will be able to submit an alternative.

I'm somewhat surprised by this.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by OldDude

After the Wall Street Journal recently published a hare-brained article on hare-brained geo-engineering schemes to curb global warming, I was surprised to see this on the "opinion" page today.

I couldn't find it online, and it has been OCR'd from the print edition. It may still contain some conversions errors I've missed.

Excellent column. Link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[Venusian]

What are this bill's chances in the Senate?

[al_bundy]

does it matter? by the time it's passed it's going to be 2000 pages of exceptions. and the only reason SUV's were popular was due to some bad legal writing during the Bush Administration

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by Venusian

What are this bill's chances in the Senate?

It will require 60 votes. That's a given.

I doubt if there is 50 votes for it now.

[movielib]

Latest count (with leaners):

https://twitter.com/ismurray/status/2346242414

205 yes

210 no

19 undecided

(Hmmm, adds up to 434. Is there a seat unfilled?)


Also:

http://algorelied.com/?p=2316

Dems in disarray over cap and tax. Rumors: they’ve pulled bill, they’ve delayed till eve, they’ll keep House on till get votes. Melt phones!

If this is true we just need 7 of the 19 undecideds. (Tie loses, right? No one to break a tie like in the Senate?)

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by movielib

Latest count (with leaners):

https://twitter.com/ismurray/status/2346242414

205 yes

210 no

19 undecided

(Hmmm, adds up to 434. Is there a seat unfilled?)


Also:

http://algorelied.com/?p=2316


If this is true we just need 7 of the 19 undecideds. (Tie loses, right? No one to break a tie like in the Senate?)

My guess is they have the votes, or will by tomorrow morning.

[wendersfan]

From twitter:

nprpolitics Climate Change Bill Passes Key House Vote http:///kl5cuu

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

From twitter:

nprpolitics Climate Change Bill Passes Key House Vote http:///kl5cuu

Your link does not work, but I assume they are referring to H. Res 587 which was a procedural vote providing for the consideration of H.R. 2454.

Not sure what, if anything, to read into that vote.

[wendersfan]

Sorry, try this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...24&ft=1&f=1014

looks like you're right - procedural.

[movielib]

Thomas Fuller commentary on "Carbongate."

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-En...warming-report

Thomas Fuller
Comment on EPA's stonewalling the global warming report
June 26, 12:51 PM

The EPA and its treatment of analyst Alan Carlin is still breaking news on the global warming front. But, after two days of playing intrepid reporter (reminds me of my youth), I will return to what I'm being paid for, which is commentary. So here I begin to commentate. See here and here for previous reports.

After talking to the various principals involved in the EPA's decision not to review Alan Carlin's report challenging the science of global warming, after reading what other media outlets reported, after seeing comments on this site, Watt's Up With That, RealClimate and other blogs and webzines, I have some strong impressions.

First and foremost is that those seeking to advance an activist solution to climate change, or what Carlin called 'warmists,' exhibit a tone deafness that I didn't think possible in this multi-media interconnected age. Now, this has nothing to do with the science, I realise, but in terms of enacting policy that furthers your position, it's pretty key.

Second, the entrenched position of these 'warmists' as exhibited, for example, at RealClimate, has really left them in a defensive position. They literally cannot react to new facts unless they fall neatly into the categories defined by their previous pronouncements, and it seems to have them at a serious disadvantage right now, as they have not been able to respond in a reasonable manner to new research results.

This is a really unfortunate occurrence, because the science is not settled, no matter how often the 'warmists' claim it is. And although right now it is the skeptics making the case that the science is not settled with the clear implication that this means the 'warmists' are wrong, it worries me almost as much because it also means the 'warmists' might be right.

Alan Carlin wrote a 100 page report in 4 days that captured some of the questions that still need to be answered before we should even consider the drastic actions that his agency may be legally forced to take if CO2 must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. He wrote reasonably and referenced peer-reviewed publications, and his point was just that these questions need to be answered. The response from the 'warmist' community has been unedifying, to say the least, questioning his background, capabilities and motives. All for asking questions.

The skeptics, on the other hand, seem to be divided into two groups, Republicans who see a conspiratorial socialist lurking under every rock and those who are trying to use the scientific method to probe the hypotheses underlying current climate change. It's pretty easy to distinguish between the two groups, and the rational skeptics make many cogent points about the science, the discussion of the science and its influence on policy decisions and mechanisms.

I have to say I respond more warmly to what I see in the rational skeptic community. I like them more, quite frankly. Sadly, this does not mean they are correct. But they know that--what they want is to reopen the discussion. Since the 'warmist' position seems to be that the discussion cannot be reopened at all costs, it leads to an impasse where the 'warmists' tend to look truculent and arrogant, while the skeptics look reasonable and rational. Which could end up very wrongly deciding the politics of this issue instead of the science.

[movielib]

MSM dented. NYT picks up EPA Carbongate story (Don't know if this is in the actual newspaper).

Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate 'Endangerment' Proposal
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire
Published: June 26, 2009

Two U.S. EPA career employees detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency's "endangerment" finding in a report released last night by a conservative think tank.

Republican lawmakers have blasted EPA for failing to release the document, accusing the Obama administration of suppressing dissenting views for political purposes. But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says the agency considered a broad range of opinions and maintained an open and transparent process in developing the proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Dissent on the proposal was expressed in a March 16 report (pdf) by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They raise questions about data that EPA used to develop the proposed finding. The Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute posted the document on its Web site last night.

"While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we're tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency since she took office," said CEI attorney Sam Kazman. "So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today."

The report's authors say EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation."

The report says EPA used outdated science to support its finding. The authors cite studies that show -- among other things -- declining global temperatures and a changing scientific consensus on weather patterns. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject," Carlin and Davidson wrote.

Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA's economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor's degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said. The co-author of the report, John Davidson, is an environmental scientist in the economics office who holds a doctorate in physics. Davidson also joined the program in 1983.

A string of e-mails (pdf) surfaced this week showing discussions between Carlin and Al McGartland, the director of the economics office.

In exchanges between March 12 and March 17, Carlin asked McGartland to forward his comments to the office responsible for managing the endangerment finding's development. McGartland declined. "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote (E&E Daily, June 25).

Republicans say the e-mails show the Obama administration suppressed EPA staff comments because they contradict the administration's political decision to move forward with the endangerment finding.

"What's happening here is that the EPA is cooking the books," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking member of the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming. "They have suppressed a study that completely blows apart the scientific underpinnings of the endangerment finding that the EPA administrator made on CO2, and this study has been suppressed because it does not fit the Obama administration's political objectives."

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said EPA's actions raise serious questions about the development of the endangerment proposal, "a finding that relates directly to the rush to vote" today on a sweeping climate and energy bill.

Barton urged EPA yesterday to release the report so undecided members could consider it as they prepare to vote on the legislation.

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said earlier this week that Carlin is not a scientist and was not part of the working group that dealt with the endangerment issue.

"Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding," she said. "Additionally, his manager 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."

Note that the quotes from the press secretary that Thomas Fuller has already dismissed as so much spin get the last word.

[classicman2]

If the vote on the Republican substitute is any indication of the final vote, the proposed legislation is going to pass much easier tha I thought.

[classicman2]

Final vote on passage was 219-212.

8 Repubs voted for the bill.

I believe 45 Democrats voted no.

[movielib]

Shit. The Republican defectors lost it.

Oh well, not all that surprising although I thought there may be hope.

The Republicans in the Senate have to stand firm against this nonsense. Are you listening, John McCain?

[Thor Simpson]

It passed. The spending train continues, full steam ahead.

[classicman2]

The Senate is where the bill faces real opposition.

A seven vote margin will not be enough in the Senate.

[General Zod]

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson

It passed. The spending train continues, full steam ahead.

We are getting what we voted for and it's not going to stop until people realize what is happening.. and it takes people a really long time to realize that "their guy" is screwing them over..

[TheBigDave]

Originally Posted by movielib

Shit. The Republican defectors lost it.

Here's the names:

Bono Mack
Castle
Kirk
Lance
LoBiondo
McHugh
Reichert
Smith (NJ)

[classicman2]

What do you believe would happen to domestic exploration & drilling for oil & natural gas if this bill, watered down as it is, should become law?

If the bill becomes law, what do you believe the price for a bbl. of crude oil will be 12/31/09?

[wmansir]

Originally Posted by movielib

MSM dented. NYT picks up EPA Carbongate story (Don't know if this is in the actual newspaper).


Note that the quotes from the press secretary that Thomas Fuller has already dismissed as so much spin get the last word.

That's a great example of burying the lead. The real story is how the EPA reacted to their "questioning" of the science, not merely the fact that they are raising questions. Also, the EPA's deflection of "he's not a real scientist" falls even further apart with the revelation that he co-authored the report in question with a "real" environmental scientist.

[movielib]

Inhofe vows to defeat ration 'n' tax in the Senate.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-b553be86908a

Razor-Thin House Vote Spells Doom for Cap-and-Tax in the Senate
June 26, 2009
Contact: Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov 202-224-9797

Razor-Thin House Vote Spells Doom for Cap-and-Tax in the Senate

Inhofe Vows to Expose Bill in the Senate as All Cost, No Climate Gain

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, commented today on the House passage of the "America's Clean Energy and Security Act," (Waxman-Markey bill) by a vote of 219 to 212. The bill now moves to the Senate where Senator Inhofe vowed to lead the opposition to what he called the "largest tax increase in American history."

"Today's razor thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate," Senator Inhofe said. "Despite a large Democratic majority in the House, and the fact that this is one of the President's top priorities, the Democratic leadership was forced to do everything possible to get a bill passed. Their slim victory could come at a high price - this is the BTU tax all over again.

"I am pleased to see the entire Oklahoma House delegation stand united in their opposition to the bill. Oklahomans understand the devastating impacts this bill would have on our energy and agricultural industries. In particular, I want to thank Rep. Lucas for his hard work in exposing these costly impacts on the agricultural community.

"The Waxman-Markey bill is just the latest incarnation of cap-and-trade legislation that will destroy American jobs by pushing them overseas, force consumers to shoulder the burden of higher gasoline and electricity prices, and drastically increase the size and scope of the federal government. In the Senate, I have worked with my colleagues to successfully defeat cap-and-trade legislation in 2003, 2005, and most recently in 2008. Now, just a year later, and with the economy in a deep recession, it is hard to believe that many more senators would support legislation that would strangle any hope of economic recovery and impose the largest tax increase in American history."

[movielib]

Editorial on ration 'n' tax bill:

Updated. See Post #73.