If there was ever any doubt about the political nature of global warming, it was dispelled by the burying of a report by the EPA's own Alan Carlin.
Carlin compiled a 98 page report that pointed to some inconvenient facts that call the connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature into doubt, at a time when the President is pushing "urgent" carbon emissions regulation through the Congress. From FOXNews.com:"Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been 'greatly diminished.' "
Carlin's boss, Al McGartland, decided not to forward the report and had Carlin reassigned. According to Carlin, he implied that if he did not reassign him he would lose his own job. The official response from McGartland is below:
"'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, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "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.' "
The President is not obliged to accept the conclusions of a staffer at the EPA, but that staffer works for us, ultimately. We have the right to know the facts and even the insights of those on the taxpayer payroll. It is a fact that global temperatures have trended downward over the past 11 years as greenhouse gas emissions have increased. That's not to say that trending toward lower carbon emissions is not a good idea. But, the urgency smells very phony. This is not about saving the planet. It's about money and control.
Comments
I deleted the comment referring to DeepClimate.org, only due to the immaturity of the poster.
The article cited on DeepClimate attacks Mr. Carlin and suggests his ideas were not original. It doesn't deal with the ideas and stats themselves.
In the eyes of global warming advocates Mr. Carlin and his ilk are blasphemers. I got that. However, that bit of information is of absolutely no value to me.
Unfortunately, Mr Carlin is not a climate scientist, and the objections he raises ("the sun is causing global warming") have been debunked many times.
I fail to see why the opinions of an economist should overrule the opinions of the thousands of actual climate experts that disagree with him.
Mr Carlin is being lauded by climate change deniers because they can cite him as an EPA employee - conveniently his role in the EPA and his area of expertise are rarely explained. Journalistic integrity would encourage both investigating Carlin's claims (which are easily refuted) and being honest about his expertise (which is not climate).
Also - deleting comments due to the "immaturity of the poster" makes you look like you're afraid of disagreement.
Global warming has become a religion and the quashing of Carlin's report is an example of religious intolerance toward competing ideas. I can only hope that somewhere in EPA there is a contemporary "Deep Throat" who will make this report readily available to the public.
Global warming has become a religion and the recent quashing of Carlin's report is an example of systematic intolerance toward competing ideas. Deniers are heretics and are ready targets for retribution. We need a contemporary "Deep Throat" to provide the public ready access to this report.
The report was an unsolicited series of comments compiled by an economist within the EPA whose boss allowed him to work on it outside of his area of expertise and responsibility on agency time. This same economist has generated multiple iterations of the same report over the last two years and has been given multiple opportunities to host seminars with audiences both inside and outside of the agency. The content of the report itself was relies on blogs, unpublished studies, non-reviewed books, and studies in a journal of questionable validity.
As for Deep Climate, he accurately points out that considerable sections of Carlin's report are lifted almost word-for-word from non-peer-reviewed blog postings without attribution, with the pronouns in Carlin's report indicating his personal ownership of the work. How that reflects on Carlin should be for the reader to decide.
Catastrophic warming due to human CO2 emissions is either happening or it isn't. It shouldn't be an emotionally charged, political or religious issue. One would think we could compare reality to the computer models and determine whether the hypothesis has merit or not. Unfortunately, stunts like the "hockey stick graph" have called all stats into question.
Of course you could rely on your own experience. Here in Colorado it certainly hasn't been a warming trend in recent years, but that's local and anecdotal.
If we want to get to a point where we can collectively make sound judgments based on facts, maybe we should stop lying to each other in the name of politics. I'm not holding my breath.
In the event that publicly available information becomes suspect, the default position should be that the government take NO ACTION until trust is restored.
This doesn't suprise me one bit. it's become common practice to fire or discredit top scientists or professors that speak out against global warming.
When will the EPA reveal the hazzards of using CFL instead on incandescent light bulbs. what is the carbon footprint differences?
How much mercury will we put into our landfills before someone says stop.
Maybe we should wait until LED light bulbs become more affordable before forcing a change.
"We need a contemporary "Deep Throat" to provide the public ready access to this report. "
Um, it's right here (edit, it's on carlin's personal web page, search for "carlineconomics" - apparently I'm not allowed to put links in comments. The Examiner might want to re-examine what the web is all about).
the report isn't being "suppressed" because scientists don't like the conclusions, it's being "ignored" because it's totally non-scientific clap-trap. It's being suppressed in the same way the time cube is being suppressed.
open government redefined
"It is a fact that global temperatures have trended downward over the past 11 years as greenhouse gas emissions have increased."
This is not a fact, but a mistake. Global temperatures were high in 1998 because of a strong El Nino, but the overall trend remains upward, not downward.
According to NASA, "The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005."
Shouldn't you be checking this stuff before you publish?
How true it is that ideology causes really smart people to believe in really dumb things.
Read John Coleman's Corner at KUSI TV's website to get a wakeup call. He is the founder of the Weather Channel. I'd say he is qualified to discuss global warming. Read it with an open mind and then decide on your own.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!