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

[movielib]

Getting long in the tooth again so I thought I'd start the new thread. This time I'm doing it before someone else shuts me out of getting my name on the thread.

Part 6 (or "VI"):

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part VI

Also, we sometimes go a little outside of global warming to other related or occasionally unrelated environmental or energy concerns so I thought I'd add that those subjects are welcome too. Of course this thread has no monopoly over those wider subjects.

Mods, please close the last thread.

[kvrdave]

[movielib]

Wow, the fallout from the CEI complaint about the EPA is already coming out hot and heavy. You can read the comments at Anthony Watts' Watts Up With That from where I posted the original story. Again, the link is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...ublic-comment/

Particularly:

anonymous (17:51:36) :

Folks, I work at EPA and am unfortunate enough to actually know exactly what happened. Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal. The claim that he is simply an economist is a deep disservice to Alan and is patently false. Further, the work group refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” – suggesting they won’t be able to evaluate the public comments either. Notably, others at EPA agree with Alan’s analysis which EPA will make public (so they say). If they actually release the report Alan sent forward, and don’t take his extremely critical statements out, it will embarrass the Agency badly. That will be a shame, but it is what the Agency has earned for itself.

I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.

Anthony commented:

REPLY: Doing a quick Google Search on the email he provided, I can vouch for the claim of this poster working with the EPA – Anthony

Anonymous then posted:

Re: Tom Fuller (18:08:13) [Note by movielib: Fuller, who I have read before and tends to be fair-minded, nevertheless was buying the load of crap the EPA press secretary was spinning out - see Post #775 from the last thread]

I respect Tom’s willingness to listen to both sides in this matter. He simply is not privy to the facts. Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple. The arguments were ignored for lack of expertise in climate science. Indeed, when an investigation was done to determine how many full time equivalents (bureaucratise for “people”) EPA has with actual first hand knowledge on how to use the kind of GCMs upon which the IPCC relied, the answer was half a person (a person half time). I’m not sure, but I don’t think that person was actually on the work group. I don’t recall seeing his name on it, in any case.

Tom, there are going to be a lot of questions about this transaction. I am not permitted to give details, but I expect Congressional inquiries will force most of the facts out. If they don’t, then I don’t really know what to say.

I’m prepared to go on background on this if you are serious about finding out the facts.

Another moderator at WUWT also replied to Tom Fuller:

Reply: Tom, look at the post from anonymous five posts up. Hopefully it gives you some indications of other questions you might ask. I don’t think the poster will want to forward their identity to you, but I have also searched the net and have confirmed that person is in a role which gives him access to everything he has stipulated. And of course you are welcome here. ~ charles the moderator

It does appear very likely that Alan Carlin was muzzled by the EPA (really muzzled, as opposed to the fake muzzling James Hansen claims the Bush administration imposed on him). The EPA did not want to hear anything contrary to their already made up minds and the comment process which was required by law was simply turned into a sham. While that is not particularly surprising it is somewhat surprising that it is getting out.

And sure it's possible that Anonymous is a phony. But these blogs have access to the email addresses and I presume the IP addresses of posters and are in a position to do a lot of verification. I also know Anthony Watts is pretty careful in making claims and if he says Anonymous is the real deal I think there's reason to trust that.

[movielib]

The MSM is doing its usual ignore job on this story but there have been a couple of articles posted from non-MSM sources (yes, of course these sources are not friendly to CAGW):

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...&pageId=102031

EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings

Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily

Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have "a very negative impact on our office."

His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No, I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this bureau.'"

A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment."

Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.

"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."

After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.

"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "… 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. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." [Note by movielib: Does this seem like "we've already made up our minds more than three months before the close of the comment period"? - In fact more than a month before the comment period even started!]

In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, "With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." [Note by movielib: The endangerment finding was "nearly final" more than three months before the end of the comment period? - In fact more than a month before the comment period even started!]

CEI charges that suppression of Carlin's study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both "the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded" must be included in the rulemaking record.

"They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I'm sure they're going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists," Kazman told WND. "But I'd say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can't be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency."

CEI also said the incident violated the EPA's commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.

Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, "As Administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama's April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, "[u]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over."

In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, "Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin's study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely."

"The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA's new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that's really incredible," Kazman said.

CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin's study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.

Kazman said the issue is "coming to a head" because the EPA's internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.

He believes Carlin's study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.

"Any right-minded administrator would have said, 'Fine, put it in and we'll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions," Kazman said. "But instead, they shut the guy up."

And:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ockery_of.html

June 24, 2009
Obama's EPA Makes a Mockery of Due Process
Marc Sheppard

Surely climate alarmists enjoy enough unfair advantage over their rational counterparts, what with the mainstream media shamelessly suppressing the findings of the latter for political purposes. But now there’s compelling evidence that alarmists within our government have also taken unfair advantage, suppressing the results of their own climate study for the same nefarious reasons.

Sixty days ago yesterday, EPA chief Lisa Jackson released the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The proposal initiated a statutory period of public commentary – ending yesterday – providing a forum to experts and interested parties on both sides of the “CO2 as pollutant” issue prior to any regulatory action.

But on the final day of the public commentary period, a dispatch was submitted to the EPA accusing them of attempting to cover-up an internal study that imperiled the outcome predetermined by both the agency and its puppeteers – the Obama administration. And the intraagency emails attached to the letter -- submitted by Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) general counsel Sam Kazman [PDF] -- leave little room for doubt.

One EPA office director actually demanded that the endangerment-challenging study be barred from circulation within the agency, never disclosed to the public, and not placed in the docket of the proceeding. And, as Kazman observed dead-on, the communications between that EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) Office Director -- Al McGartland -- and study author Alan Carlin, an NCEE Senior Operations Research Analyst, made clear that it was the study’s conclusions rather than its merit that earned it its place on the trash heap.

In a March 16 email to McGartland (who in a prior email had forbade his speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues) and three other NCEE staffers, Carlin requested that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin pointed out that roughly two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and that his comments “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.”

The next day, Carlin received two emails from McGartland. The first announced the director’s decision not to forward Carlin’s comments to OAR, explaining that he could “only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” The second was a direct order arriving eight minutes later: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”

Now that’s democratic public commentary at work. Can’t imagine why the term bureaucrat is more often than not slung pejoratively.

In all likelihood, the threat of CO2 regulation is merely an Administration ruse to coerce legislation. And Waxman-Markey is short on votes, even with proponents in both Houses pushing their skeptical colleagues to capitulate rather than ordain the EPA as the most powerful agency in the country. Remove that specter and remove with it the cap-and-trader’s ace-in-the-hole. Both at home and in Copenhagen in December.

Writes Kazman:

“CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.”

The attorney reminded the agency of Obama’s April 27th speech to the National Academy of Sciences, in which he declared that “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

He might have also mentioned that during her confirmation hearings in January, Lisa Jackson assured the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide,” adding that “political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes."

At the time, we mocked the glaring absurdity of both oaths.

Now we denounce their impudence.

And their own mockery of process.

[Thor Simpson]

Can't we just punch a big hole in the ozone to cool things off a little?

[movielib]

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson

Can't we just punch a big hole in the ozone to cool things off a little?

Don't think that would work.

It's been warm here too. Of course, about the last five or six seasons have been below normal for us and spring was no exception. So far though, the first few days of summer have been miserably hot. And humid. Still, the sun remains quiet and I predict summer in Madison will end up below normal.

[Venusian]

Are we talking about the cap and trade bill in these threads too? I don't usually venture in there because they are over my head but the WSJ doesn't like the new bill

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by Venusian

Are we talking about the cap and trade bill in these threads too? I don't usually venture in there because they are over my head but the WSJ doesn't like the new bill

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

No one in their right mind should vote for this bill. But then again, we are talking about congress.

[VinVega]

Just popping my head in. This is a nice blog, er um thread you got going here movielib.

While I may not agree with every article posted, I don't think anyone can deny your passion for the topic.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by VinVega

Just popping my head in. This is a nice blog, er um thread you got going here movielib.

While I may not agree with every article posted, I don't think anyone can deny your passion for the topic.

You're in the Al Gore camp on this subject, aren't you?

I've been watching a little of the debate in The House.

[VinVega]

Originally Posted by classicman2

You're in the Al Gore camp on this subject, aren't you?

I'm not as interested in or as well versed on this topic as movielib is. My personal take is I don't know if either side can definitively say man is the main cause of global warming or man has nothing to do with global warming (or if the planet is warming to the degree that some people say it is). I do believe we should be good stewards of the environment. If we can find a way to create energy that is less polluting, we should do that. I don't think we should live in the stone age and give up all this technology however. So for me the jury is still out.

I've never even seen An Inconvenient Truth to be honest with you.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

No one in their right mind should vote for this bill. But then again, we are talking about congress.

Can someone explain to me why this is? I admit, I'm relatively uninformed on this issue, but it seems to me that a solution of privatizing the right to pollute would be one that would have Republicans shouting "Hallelujah!" Why is this bill such a bad idea?

[classicman2]

I too believe we should vigorously pursue alternative energy sources. But, I am also realistic enough to understand that we can't ignore the source of energy that we're going to depend on for the forseeable future - fossil fuels. I believe that some of our leaders don't seem to recognize that fact.

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Can someone explain to me why this is? I admit, I'm relatively uninformed on this issue, but it seems to me that a solution of privatizing the right to pollute would be one that would have Republicans shouting "Hallelujah!" Why is this bill such a bad idea?

You know who was big on cap and trade?



Of course since cap and trade is going to reduce the take home pay of the lowest quintile by 3-7% and increase the accounts of the highest quintile by 10-15%, I can see why Democrats are shouting, "Hallelujah!"

Wait, wut?

[movielib]

I've been gone all day (to an eye appointment following up my cataract surgery from April which followed up my macular hole surgery from September - and finally cleared to get new glasses which will be here in a week to 10 days - Lenscrafters but they still had to send out for them because of the anti-reflective lenses) and then to see the insane Transformers movie - I feel stupider having seen it but it's still entertaining in a kind of sensory overload kind of way).

Anyway, wow, just wow that Thomas Fuller, who had been buying the load of crap from the EPA trying to cover up their shutting up of a 38 year employee. Fuller now has confirmed what the employee and an anonymous source had been saying. (See the first few posts in this thread and the last few in Part 6).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/2...pa-management/

Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, surpressed, by top EPA management
25 06 2009

This story is a joint effort between the San Francisco Examiner Environmental Policy blogger Thomas Fuller and WUWT.

Here is what started it all, and email as part of a package of emails posted as public comment in the EPA endangerment finding by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who caught EPA administration red-handed in concealment of internal dissent as well as apparently proceeding with plans in advance of public comment.

From this PDF circulated by CEI, here is the most pertinent email:
McGartland-Carlin-epa-memo



Yesterday, Thomas Fuller, who writes for the Examiner in San Francisco, noted (as many other WUWT did, a comment from “anonymous” posted on the WUWT thread “The EPA suppresses dissent and opinion, and apparently decides issues in advance of public comment”

“anonymous” wrote:

anonymous (17:51:36) :

Folks, I work at EPA and am unfortunate enough to actually know exactly what happened. Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal. The claim that he is simply an economist is a deep disservice to Alan and is patently false. Further, the work group refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” – suggesting they won’t be able to evaluate the public comments either. Notably, others at EPA agree with Alan’s analysis which EPA will make public (so they say). If they actually release the report Alan sent forward, and don’t take his extremely critical statements out, it will embarrass the Agency badly. That will be a shame, but it is what the Agency has earned for itself.

I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.

REPLY: Doing a quick Google Search on the email he provided, I can vouch for the claim of this poster working with the EPA – Anthony

After I confirmed the email, one of our moderators, Charles, confirmed the originating IP address. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Fuller reported in comments:

I contacted the EPA this morning and received an email response from them that seemed relevant–and open. I contacted the CEI and received nothing.

…

I’m a liberal Democrat who happens to lean towards the skeptic arguments regarding AGW. It will never be a completely comfortable fit for me amongst many of you. But I am trying to be an honest commentator on the facts. I’m a big boy and can handle criticism, but read some of what I’ve written first.

Mr. Fuller was skeptical of the claims made by “anonymous” which I fully understand and appreciate, he wrote:

…

I linked to Anthony’s article here because I trust him and this site. I still do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did create an impression of Alan as a skeptic who could not get his opinion heard within the EPA. I’ve seen pretty convincing evidence that he not only got his opinion heard, he got some of it into the Endangerment report. It also became quickly evident that he is not a skeptic at all.

However, “anonymous” was concerned about retaliation within EPA, and both his email and IP addresses checked out.

“anonymous” replied to Mr. Fuller, and Charles offered some facilitating help:

anonymous (18:26:47)

Re: Tom Fuller (18:08:13) :

I respect Tom’s willingness to listen to both sides in this matter. He simply is not privy to the facts. Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple. The arguments were ignored for lack of expertise in climate science. Indeed, when an investigation was done to determine how many full time equivalents (bureaucratise for “people”) EPA has with actual first hand knowledge on how to use the kind of GCMs upon which the IPCC relied, the answer was half a person (a person half time). I’m not sure, but I don’t think that person was actually on the work group. I don’t recall seeing his name on it, in any case.

Tom, there are going to be a lot of questions about this transaction. I am not permitted to give details, but I expect Congressional inquiries will force most of the facts out. If they don’t, then I don’t really know what to say.

I’m prepared to go on background on this if you are serious about finding out the facts.

Reply: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.

To which the reply was:

anonymous (18:37:07)

Re: May I forward your email to Tom Fuller? ~ charles the moderator.

Only after Tom publically promises anonymity.

Reply: Ok ~ ctm

Mr. Fuller responded with:

Tom Fuller (20:33:50)

Hi all,

Anonymous, if you do agree to speak with me, I promise I will keep your identity anonymous. That is without conditions.

Thanks for performing a public service.

Tom Fuller
San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner,
Examiner.com

Reply: IP addresses and unpublished email confirmed. I believe anonymous has retired for the evening, but I will forward information ~ ctm.

I discussed the idea with Charles, and emails were exchanged, and we stood back and waited for the results.

The results were a surprise to Mr. Fuller, and he responded with this excellent article below, for which I’ve posted a link and a couple of excerpts to.

Please visit Mr. Fuller’s blog to give him some traffic and some kudos for excellence in journalism. I was pleased that team WUWT was able to assist, and it goes to demonstrate that reasonable people on opposite sides of an issue can work together to find truth. Also, let’s all give major props to WUWT’s “Charles the moderator” for his role as facilitator. – Anthony

The EPA’s internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1

A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA’s view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin’s report and said that it was ‘based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications’ that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

The EPA’s draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments–except for Carlin’s.

Unfortunately, the link to the full Fuller article is returning:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9...warming-Part-1

There has been a site error or the web application you are requesting is down for maintenance.

The information regarding this error has been sent to the Examiner.com technical team for review. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Is this just a coincidental technical problem or something more nefarious? I sure don't know but I will post the entire article if and when it again becomes available. If this persists I'm sure Anthony Watts has the entire article and will post it.

The important thing is that it appears that the CEI was completely correct in spite of the deflecting spin an EPA press secretary tried to put on the incident. Alan Carlin is a hero (IMO) who tried to inject some sense into the predetermined EPA endangerment finding and was basically told to shut the hell up. "Anonymous" was completely truthful in his or her defense of Dr. Carlin and the CEI charge. Mr. Fuller's initial inclination to believe the EPA turned out wrong and Fuller was man enough to admit it.

Big surprise, the MSM is still completely ignoring this huge story (what would they do if it were skeptics engaging in such shenanigans and coverups?).

The Fuller story was put out and no doubt copied by Anthony Watts and others. Even if The Examiner keeps it under wraps it will be posted by Watts and others. I will post it when it becomes available.

[crazyronin]

It's probably because just about any news outlet's website is getting body slammed over a certain celebrity's death.

[crazyronin]

It's up

The EPA's internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1
June 25, 2:54 PM · Thomas Fuller - SF Environmental Policy Examiner

A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA's view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin's report and said that it was 'based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications' that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

The EPA's draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments--except for Carlin's.

Alan Carlin, who had hosted a series of seminars featuring peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports (but were unattended by members of the workgroup developing the Endangerment Finding) went public via the Competitive Enterprise Institute after realising that there would be no debate about the science. The lectures by the scientists are available on the EPA website, but were not even mentioned in the Finding. Carlin was advised to get an attorney--and has since been reassigned to mundane work, some of which is normally performed by outside contractors.

All this comes despite the peculiar bind the EPA finds itself in. Regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is not something they really want to do--unless new legislation makes it possible for them to ignore smaller emitters. As it stands, the EPA would find it necessary to regulate entities as small as churches and schools, if they have buses that emit more than 250 tons of CO2 per year. But there is no certainty that new legislation will arrive at all, much less contain the restrictions the EPA needs.

Meanwhile, the many comments received by the EPA will now be evaluated. Our source indicates that it is most likely that the initial compilation and review will be conducted by outside contractors, who may also provide draft responses, which is really supposed to be done only by EPA staff. Our source notes that the EPA may not have the expertise to evaluate many of the comments, as they are more charged with dealing with the effects of global warming through regulation rather than determining the true nature of the cause. Our source says (delete: heard one member) members of the workgroup (delete: say) complained to other EPA staff that they don't understand these issues, much less how to relate the scientific studies identified in Carlin's report to the IPCC report.

[movielib]

Thanks, crazyronin, I still can't get it.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Can someone explain to me why this is? I admit, I'm relatively uninformed on this issue, but it seems to me that a solution of privatizing the right to pollute would be one that would have Republicans shouting "Hallelujah!" Why is this bill such a bad idea?

Basically because it will cost trillions of dollars and have virtually no benefit. Not to mention that the bill has been compromised by Waxman giving away exemptions to nearly every industrial and agricultural interest in states of Democrats worried about the cost to their business constituents in return for getting their votes. Also, CO2 is not a pollutant and does not cause enough warming to be deemed dangerous at the levels we are concerned with. The "privatizing" aspect is a total sham.

Please read the dozens of posts about this bill going back a few months in the previous thread.

[movielib]

The CEI has released the Carlin paper:

http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/...y-censored-epa

CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
Public Shouldn’t Be Kept in the Dark by an Agency Supposedly Committed to Transparency
by Richard Morrisontwitter
June 25, 2009

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“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. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

The report is here, in a PDF:

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

I cannot figure out how to copy and paste this but I strongly urge you all to read the Executive Summary - Pages 6-9 of the PDF (corresponding to pages iii-vi of the paper). Even if one were to eventually disagree with what it says there, it seems indisputable that it lays out eminently sensible reasons for not cavalierly dismissing and ignoring contrary and more up to date evidence than is contained in the 2007 IPCC report. But cavalierly dismissing and ignoring is exactly what the EPA did. Yet another disgraceful chapter in the magical mystical world of climate science.

Edit: Skimming through the paper, I am pleased to see much attention paid to the cosmic ray theory, which I strongly suspect may be one of the, if not the, key factor(s) which will eventually bring down the CAGW house of cards.

[movielib]

Thomas Fuller has updated his article from Post #17 (thanks again, crazyronin, for posting the article before I was able to access it) by giving due credit to Anthony Watts and his Watts Up With That blog for its invaluable contributions to the development of the story (there is at least one other update to the story so I'll reproduce the entire updated article):

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9...warming-Part-1

Thomas Fuller
The EPA's internal nightmare over global warming: Part 1
June 25, 2:54 PM

Update: Because I was on deadline (no excuse) I didn't credit Anthony Watts and his weblog Watts Up With That for a) alerting me to this issue in the first place, b) providing adequate background to help my understanding enough of the issue to proceed and c) facilitating contact with the source interviewed below. I have mentioned Mr. Watts and his weblog on numerous occasions (I'm not affiliated with them, by the way), but certainly not enough on this occasion. Watts Up With That, winner of the Science Blog of the Year, has once again provided an invaluable service to those interested in issues surrounding global warming.

A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA's view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin's report and said that it was 'based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications' that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

The EPA's draft Endangerment Finding was initially written over a year ago during the Bush administration, and Lisa Jackson (the new head of the EPA) and her team wanted to get the Finding out on or near Earth Day, according to a schedule that was made public about a week before formal publication of the proposal. The draft was submitted to agency workgroups with only one week for review and comment, which is unprecedented, and received only light comments--except for Carlin's.

Alan Carlin, who had hosted a series of seminars featuring peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports (but were unattended by members of the workgroup developing the Endangerment Finding) went public (UPDATE: Mr. Carlin, who I interviewed this evening, says that he did not approach the Competitive Enterprise Institute and did not know they were involved until a reporter contacted him on Tuesday). via the Competitive Enterprise Institute after realising that there would be no debate about the science. The lectures by the scientists are available on the EPA website, but were not even mentioned in the Finding. Carlin was advised to get an attorney--and has since been reassigned to mundane work, some of which is normally performed by outside contractors.

All this comes despite the peculiar bind the EPA finds itself in. Regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act is not something they really want to do--unless new legislation makes it possible for them to ignore smaller emitters. As it stands, the EPA would find it necessary to regulate entities as small as churches and schools, if they have buses that emit more than 250 tons of CO2 per year. But there is no certainty that new legislation will arrive at all, much less contain the restrictions the EPA needs.

Meanwhile, the many comments received by the EPA will now be evaluated. Our source indicates that it is most likely that the initial compilation and review will be conducted by outside contractors, who may also provide draft responses, which is really supposed to be done only by EPA staff. Our source notes that the EPA may not have the expertise to evaluate many of the comments, as they are more charged with dealing with the effects of global warming through regulation rather than determining the true nature of the cause. Our source says members of the workgroup complained to other EPA staff that they don't understand these issues, much less how to relate the scientific studies identified in Carlin's report to the IPCC report.

So intriguingly, Dr. Carlin was not the person who leaked his paper or the emails. It appears the story of how that happened (if we ever learn it) would be quite interesting itself.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by movielib

Basically because it will cost trillions of dollars and have virtually no benefit. Not to mention that the bill has been compromised by Waxman giving away exemptions to nearly every industrial and agricultural interest in states of Democrats worried about the cost to their business constituents in return for getting their votes. Also, CO2 is not a pollutant and does not cause enough warming to be deemed dangerous at the levels we are concerned with. The "privatizing" aspect is a total sham.

Please read the dozens of posts about this bill going back a few months in the previous thread.

Just read a post on volokh that the cap & trade bill would do more damage to the U.S. than Smoot-Hawley (or any economic legislation in the last 100 years) did. Yikes.

[classicman2]

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was having problems defending the bill this morning. He kept saying it wasn't really a tax; and, that it would cost the average American very little.

The vote in the House will be close. It looks like there is a majority to pass the bill.

The real test comes in the Senate.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by classicman2

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was having problems defending the bill this morning. He kept saying it wasn't really a tax; and, that it would cost the average American very little.

The vote in the House will be close. It looks like there is a majority to pass the bill.

Yes, I think they will be able to pass it, barely. Here's a count as of last night:

http://greenhellblog.com/2009/06/25/...re-vote-count/

Waxman-Markey pre-vote count…
June 25, 2009

Waxman-markey pre-liminary head-count as of Thursday afternoon (courtesy Myron Ebell):

218 needed to win…

Yes

Yes = 175
Leaning Yes = 35
TOTAL = 210

Undecided = 20

No

No = 190
Leaning No = 14
TOTAL = 204

Undecided or Won’t Say:

Kirkpatrick Az
Boyd Fla
Brown Fla
Bishop Ga
R Kirk Ill
Foster Ill
Donnelly Ind
R Jones NC
McIntyre NC
R Frelinghuysen NJ
Tonko NY
Arcuri NY
Space Ohio (he voted for it in committee)
Carney Penna.
Davis Tenn
Al Green Tex
Jackson Lee Tex
Ortiz Tex
Eddie Bernice Johnson Tex
Kind Wisc

Leaning Yes:

Mitchell Az
Cardoza Calif
Costa Calif
Baca Calif
R Castle Del
Grayson Fla
Meek Fla
Kozmas Fla
Abercrombie Hi
Bean Ill
R Cao La
Kratovil Md
R Ehlers Mich
Kildee Mich
Schauer Mich
Peters Mich
Clay Mo
Skelton Mo
Thompson Miss
Shuler NC
Adler NJ
Lance NJ
Meeks NY
McMahon NY
Murphy NY
R McHugh NY
Maffei NY
Driehaus Ohio
Fudge Ohio
Kilroy Ohio
Cooper Tenn
Edwards Tex
Rodriguez Tex
Nye Va
Kagan Wisc

Leaning No:

Salazar Colo
Marshall Ga
Boswell Iowa
Minnick Idaho
Halvorson Ill
Etheridge NC
Kissell NC
Massa NY
Kaptur Ohio
Boccieri Ohio
R Gerlach Penna
Hinojosa Tex
Mollohan WV
Rahall WV

The real test comes in the Senate.

We only need 41 to stick to their guns (40 if the MN seat is still vacant).

[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.

The Climate Change Climate Change
Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2009, Page A13
Kimberley Strassel

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan, and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policy-makers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs manmade warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of CO2. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning manmade global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist—and ardent global warming believer—in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed ' science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.