EPA suppresses report calling into question global warming science

June 30, 6:14 AMDenver Weather ExaminerTony Hake

Previous Next

23 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Denver Weather Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.”

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)