Recently released documents and emails show dissent
within the Environmental Protection Agency over
the manmade climate change theory.
The Environmental Protection Agency, keen to advance President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives, apparently suppressed a report from leading experts calling into question the science behind the theory of manmade climate change. The 98-page report, submitted to agency leaders just prior to it recommending regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, continues to call into question the ‘consensus’ many have said the scientific community has about the theory.
Alan Carlin, the report’s primary author, was told via email from superiors in the agency to not “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his group at the EPA. The well-published PhD has experience in environment and public policy dating back to 1964 but after submitting the report was told to discontinue working on climate change entirely.
In reviewing the report, it is obvious why the administration would find the report very untimely leading up to its decision on CO2 and its push for climate change legislation. The report authors saw the rush to judgment and urged caution saying their “concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt to reach conclusions on the subject.”
Climate change in the news - Check out these other stories
Slideshow: Is the science settled? See who says it is not.
No climate change but yes for a different clean energy bill (Baltimore Weather Examiner - Tony Pann)
Global warming responsible for 300,000 deaths a year
Is global warming responsible for a slow tornado season?
Cap-and-trade legislation to include ‘Global Warming Gestapo’
One benefit of poor economic conditions - lower CO2 emissions
Carlin and his co-authors believed that the EPA and other government agencies were ignoring science that is coming to light calling into question the entire manmade climate change theory. It is their belief that the EPA and other organizations “have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.”
The report went on to cite a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the science behind arguments made by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The authors make note of many issues with the including:
- Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.
- Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.
- The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
- Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”
- Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.
- Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.
- Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.
In all, the report attacks virtually every point global warming advocates have used. The authors make their argument and conclusions with enough data to raise serious questions about the science and the administration’s push for new legislation. If the report’s conclusions are accurate it would cause serious doubts about the need for the new legislation whose hallmark includes a cap-and-trade scheme which is expected to cost consumers thousands of dollars a year and place a large burden on industry as the nation attempts to recover from a deepening recession.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised new transparency but
her agency apparently quashed an internal report calling into
question the science behind the global warming theory. (AP)
The Obama Administration and new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson were anxious to render a decision on CO2 so as to move forward with the president’s agenda. A review process that normally would take years was completed in weeks, contrary to Ms. Jackson’s assurances after being nominated saying, “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."
Despite claims by Jackson and the administration of new transparency supposedly not seen during the Bush administration, emails obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) show a decidedly difference picture. Al McGartland, the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics Director, told a researcher via email that, “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
In a statement the EPA said Carlin was not a scientist and not part of the group working on the carbon dioxide issues. However, McGartland told Carlin via email in March that, “I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” Further highlighting that Carlin was expected to remain silent, McGartland said, “Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."
For his part, Carlin has said that he believed McGartland was acting on orders from others higher up in the agency and administration. He told CBSnews.com that, "It was his view [McGartland’s] that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higher levels."
As the president’s marquee climate change bill was being heard in the House last week, Republicans attempted to raise a flag in light of this new evidence. The bill however passed and is now in the Senate where Sen. James Inofe, R-Okla, is saying he is going to ensure the full details of the report see the light of the day.
- EPA Study Document (CEI Website)
- Copies of emails obtained by the CEI (CEI Website)
Comments
The man-made global warming debate seems similar to religious debates: one side defending the dogma they preach and the other side trying to question the status quo and bring new science and information to the table. The only disturbing thing is that the US Government has become the party defending dogma and trying to suppress science. Has man-made global warming become an issue of the separation of Church and State? If they are creating laws and taxes based on unproven and questionable theories, I say they've crossed a line and have begun endorsing a religion.
This is a sad. You are using the CEI as a source. CEI has repeatedly been shown to misrepresent scientific findings.
Temperature decline over the past 11 years is compatible with climate change.
Increased tropical storm occurrences have not been cited as being a result of climate change.
Ice sheets in Greenland have been melting. Just do a search in Google Scholar. This is just lazy reporting.
Solar variability is complete rubbish. That the report cites that is enough to show that Carlin should be fired. NOAA has great data on this.
Oh man I just looked at your slide show. This is a joke right? A TV meteorologist, a republican senator, an astronaut, another meteorologist, and a physicist. Try finding a climatologist who opposes the notion that climate change is human driven.
David,
Thank you for your comments. The report are not from CEI - they are the EPA’s own reports generated by EPA employees. CEI obtained them via FOI requests so the fact they are the group that brought them to light is not relevant.
Temperature decline – If increased CO2 is the primary reason behind climate change / global warming, why have temperatures declined despite increased CO2 in the last 11 years?
Tropical storms – I wholeheartedly disagree. It has been often said by global warming activists / experts that increased cyclonic activity will be a direct result. The IPCC has said so in their own reports, Al Gore made the claims in his movie, and President Obama even repeated the claim recently.
Solar variability – Why is a chart that shows increased temperatures coinciding with increased CO2 emissions considered acceptable when one showing the same correlation with solar variability dismissed?
David,
In regards to the slideshow, those are simply some of the easily recognizable faces. There are many others - including climate scientists - that disagree with the theory. One such example:
money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412
Further to that, most of the research and analysis done on climate change - whether in favor or against - is not done by climate scientists. Geologists, physicists, economists, medical doctors and many more all contribute to the science behind each view. The IPCC's own reports are authored by very few 'climate scientists'.
I have deleted a comment deemed inappropriate. Any commentary should be respectful and refrain from name calling. "Thomas Lee Elifritz" is more than welcome to repost his comment and link if he adheres to these basic tenants of decency.
So Nasa's global temperature graphs' 1 degree celcius temperature increase since 1900 means nothing, eh? data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
Look carefully at the graph I just posted. The report claiming that global warming doesn't exist cherrypick the section from 1940 to 1970 that has a .2 degree temperature decline, despite the entire graph showing a clear increase in global temperatures. This is why the report was discredited
You know what's really sad David? Illiterates formulating trillion dollar policy decisions on the tripe peddled by the IPCC. Take away the climate models & they have zilch. The same methods & heuristics can't predict weather, economics or model a coin flip.
Tony thank you for the response, but you are plainly wrong. The report was written by an EPA employee, but one who works in the accounting section. The reason that there are scientists of various disciplines writing in reports such as the IPCC is because the effects of climate change are wide reaching. Medical doctors write about health impacts of climate change. Economists write about the the economic implications. Geologists write about proof that carbon levels are tied to temperature. However climatologists write about the long-term effects of increased carbon in the atmosphere. The basic science is very simple and has actually been known for over 100 years. Anyway your points are incorrect in the follow fashion:
Temperature decline: Temperature, weather, and climate are different. Weather and temperature are the results of a number of factors. You say the past 11 years have not increased in temperature, but that is irrelevant. *continued in another post*
All that matters is that those 11 years were warmer than they would have been under 'normal' atmospheric conditions. In fact in 2007 the Earth should have been cooler than most years, due to the Pacific being in the cool phase of its natural El Nino - La Nina cycle, yet it was the second warmest year on record. Further when you state that it hasn't warmed in the past 11 years, you leave out the fact that 1998 was the strongest El Nino event of the century. After which the warming effect of El Nino decrease, so the fact that it hasn't gotten warmer over the past 11 years is no surprise to anyone.
As far as the scientist you linked. NASA actually takes urban heat island effect into account when they take measurements. The Third Assessment Report from the IPCC says:
over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences.
About the tropical storms, I worded my first response very poorly. I don't know too much about the subject, so I will quote from the abstract of an article from Science (Vol. 308. no. 5729, pp. 1753 - 1754):
"The marked increase in land-falling hurricanes in Florida and Japan in 2004 has raised questions about whether global warming is playing a role. In his Perspective, Trenberth explains that the observational hurricane record reveals large natural variability from El Niño and on multidecadal time scales, and that trends are therefore relatively small. However, sea surface temperatures are rising and atmospheric water vapor is increasing. These factors are potentially enhancing tropical convection, including thunderstorms, and the development of tropical storms. These changes are expected to increase hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane numbers and tracks remains unclear."
Nimbo,
Why would you want to model weather, economics, or a coin flip using climate models? That seems rather silly.
Yes David, I agree with you 100%. It is silly. Computer modeling of chaotic systems is ludicrous. Doesn't work on a coin flip. Doesn't work on today's weather. Can't tell me what the market will do. And it sure as sh_t can't predict the climate over the next 100 years. Do yourself a favor & read the IPCC report regarding the models. According to the IPCC report, there are no metrics for confidence applied to AOGCMs: it states the models are contradictory; that unforced climate changes (which last for centuries) occur even in models; they cannot model cloud feedback; and the numerical overhead for AOGCM modeling prohibits using higher resolutions.
Hansen is a hack with a personal agenda.
It would help your case Nimbo if the models weren't constantly underestimating climate changes effects. I actually think that you should read the IPCC report entitled "Climate Models and Their Evaluation".
Actually David, I don't need to read the pablum in the IPCC report. I actually took enough math & science in college to evaluate the papers directly. And while you make think the Hansen's hypothesis is compelling, I find his methods of deriving climate sensitivity to GHGs shabby. Sorry. Let me guess.... you were a poly sci major? English Lit?
Actually my major was Environmental Sciences, focusing mainly on Industrial Ecology. I'm currently looking into grad school. What was your major and how long ago did you get it? Do you really believe that you are smarter than 95% of practicing scientists?
Why do you keep bringing up Hansen? He hardly was the one to discover climate change. That would be Svante Arrhenius. Nor is he the only scientist who is part of the scientific consensus of climate change, which includes hundreds of thousands of scientists. I could care less about Hansen.
David, perhaps you should read the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report more thoroughly before using it as "evidence" to make your case for anthropogenic warming.
First, if you had really read the report instead of just quoting from it you would have realized that the models are far from complete, ignoring solar forcing altogether and turning the variable that is Sol's output into a constant that won't interfere with the conclusions they want to draw from the data.
Second, the models have never been accurate predictors of the past and therefore cannot be assumed to accurately predict the future. It can't be put more simply than that. These models ARE NOT ACCURATE.
Get the .pdf from their site and search for "WGI 9.5.4" for information about radiative forcing
Citation showing invalidity of current models
Kiehl, J.T., 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L22710, doi:
Joe,
Please understand what a radiative forcing is before you speak. It is not the same as solar forcing, which is not ignored like you imply.
According to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar radiance since 1940. Please google "Solar Constant".
Aerosols are currently difficult to model, but that is taken into account into the models and the results. The reality is that the models are inaccurate, but they are constantly being shown to underestimate climate warming effects.
David,
Went to the Max Planck Institute and it appears things have changed since you last looked. Or you could be cherry picking from old data to support your position, in any case I'll include a couple press releases about continued research into what people like you assume is a constant based on old theories.
mpimet.mpg.de/en/wissenschaft/ueberblick/atmosphaere-im-erdsystem/modellierung-der-mittleren-und-hohen-atmosphaere/solar-cycle.html
telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming---its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html
Here's some information about Solar Cycle 24 which could go either way at this point. What I fear the most is the damage to our already fragile economy which will be caused in the name of this holy crusade against global warming. If SC 24 proves to be as low as 23 was we could be headed for another mini ice age.
newscientist.com/article/dn17102-solar-cycle-will-be-weakest-since-1928-forecasters-say.html
Joe,
You are conflating two vary different natural phenomenon. Solar cycles are well known and well documented. There is an 11-year wax/wane of solar activity which effects climate, this has been known for awhile. Saying that the solar cycle will be at its lowest point since 1928 is cute. What you don't mention is that the cycle in 1928 wasn't that much lower than any other time in the past 80 years. Please give a scientific citation stating the risk of entering an ice age due to a 1928 level of solar activity.
When scientists talk of a solar constant, they are talking about the amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth on an average year. There are differences year to year based on the solar cycle, but those differences are expected, so they can be built into the model.
Please try again, though!
David,
Since you seem to be an expert in this field can you explain how these "obvious" numbers for solar cycle 24 predictions can be built into models when the scientists looking at the raw data (from NOAA, NASA, ISES among others) are barely able to come to a majority consensus?
swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
I really don't need to bring up information relating to the Maunder Minimum do I?
Joe,
I'm sure you of all people understand noise in data. The geometry of the cycle is known and the rough statistical boundaries are known. The actual cycle is complex, thus there is noise in the data, which means that 100% certitude is impossible. Instead long term behavior can be estimated, due to the randomness of the fluctuations--which should more or less cancel out. This is why the predicted level is so smooth in your link, while the recorded data is up and down.
This means predicting the weather from solar cycles is impossible, but predicting the long term climatic behavior is easy.
Again you ignore that fact that solar radiation has remained constant since 1940, please address this. mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
The Maunder Minimum is an interesting phenomenon, but please explain how it is relevant to current discussions on future climate?
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!