Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I’ve waited a few days to see how this revelation of a purportedly "suppressed" EPA document that is skeptical of climate change played out. The supposedly damaging report was dug up by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank, and exposed just prior to the house vote on the Waxman-Makey bill (aka American Clean Energy and Security Act), which passed despite this last minute attempt to torpedo it amidships. After all timing is everything.

The draft of the document in question is here:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

You will see that the report is really nothing more than a rehash of many of the denialist talking points with only one peer-reviewed study, which was unrelated to the topic’s conclusion, as support. All the rest of the underlying documentation came from criticised
blog postings, non-peer-reviewed articles even one astrologer.

Conclusion, the report itself was rather an embarrassment to science and would have been as well to the EPA had they used it.

Let’s get back to the supposed victim here. This controversy surrounds one Alan Carlin who is a 71 year old economist working for the EPA and the author of the report. Carlin it seems took it upon himself, climate change is his hobby, to hand over an unsolicited report to the EPA as an official submission from his unit the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) which was in no way approved by his boss. Now Carlin could have placed this report for review during the public Endangerment findings but opted not to do so. Obviously the report was not used, but hardly represents suppression by EPA officials.

Carlin in fact has been free to talk about this controversy to almost every right wing blog, news rag and lets not forget interviews at FoxNews to explain his case. All this has prompted Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) to proceed with a criminal investigation of the cover up. Now this may sound a little hypocritical to some because where was Senator Inhofe’s righteous indignation when NASA was being silenced from talking to the media a couple of year ago?

The most damaging evidence of what a farce this story is though comes from Carlin himself in an interview with TPM.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... ould_p.php

What is it with Enviro-Loons and Al Gore Worshippers who themselves know jack squat about climate science and who go running around calling the unindoctrinated "deniers."?

I'll never get this.

To the extent I'm on the fence about anything, if side A is calling side B the "denier" side, then I'll cast my lot with side B.

Calling somebody a "denier" is intellectually vacant and the same thing as calling them an "infidel."

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: 'You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years'
http://climatedepot.com/a/1745/Scientis ... -ten-years

'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science'
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1421/Scar ... he-science

Original EPA Report
"You will see that the report is really nothing more than a rehash of many of the climate change talking points "

Fishman wrote:Original EPA Report
"You will see that the report is really nothing more than a rehash of many of the climate change talking points "

The exception being, the EPA report is supported by a substantial body of peer-reviewed evidence.

Schmuto wrote:What is it with Enviro-Loons and Al Gore Worshippers who themselves know jack squat about climate science and who go running around calling the unindoctrinated "deniers."? I'll never get this.
To the extent I'm on the fence about anything, if side A is calling side B the "denier" side, then I'll cast my lot with side B. Calling somebody a "denier" is intellectually vacant and the same thing as calling them an "infidel."

I'll cast my lot with the side that doesn't resort to third-grade playground language to describe the other side.

"Denier" is a bit of shorthand and might be a little intellectually lazy, but it doesn't come close to the name-calling that occurs on the other side. At least it is somewhat descriptive.

I can see it already, 2015:

The arctic has been ice free during the summer for the last couple years.

Global warming deniers claim it is a big conspiracy, that the ice is still there(posting pictures from 20 yrs ago claiming they are current) and that unless we have personally stood on the edge of the Arctic Ocean and seen the open water with our own eyes, we have no proof.

Schmuto wrote:I'll never get this.

The minions just parrot what the handlers feed them. When attempting to form a global consensus about something quickly that is quite impossible to prove, drastic steps must be taken.

If you haven't consciously realized it yet, the only other widespread use of "denier" has been...gasp..."Holocaust Denier"!!!

IMHO the denial camp sits firmly with the belief that the UN and anything it does is for the eternal betterment of the planet and it is in all of our best interests to allow a one world government to begin passing world law and judgement upon all the people of the earth. The basic problem with this is already obvious in our bloated bureaucratic systems of today. Too many people playing parasite, it's sucking the lifeblood out of humanity.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton in 1887

Cid Yama wrote:we have no proof

Prove in your hypothetical scenario that carbon dioxide molecules released by humans are responsible without using a lot of hypothetical computer models. More importantly by going with the "consensus reality" prove how playing the game and empowering politicians to have even more control over your life will really help (knowing what we know about the world today)?. You seem to be suffering more from "global mourning" and a serious case of doomerism.

I find it helps to get outside more, right out there with nature if possible. Your pity party for earth quickly diminishes when faced with the "reality" of raw nature. Allowing a bunch of pasty, pot bellied, international enviromental scientists farting around with virtual CO2 molecules on a screen to instill fear and guilt into your psyche is not a good thing. They are eating your fear for dinner, it's probably the best job they ever had and it's the price we pay when living in a monetary society.

pablonite wrote:Prove in your hypothetical scenario that carbon dioxide molecules released by humans are responsible without using a lot of hypothetical computer models.

You mean like the temperature of Venus?

Let's not forget that the report is actually plagiarism. http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

This part of the WCR post became the pivotal section 3 of the Carlin report, “Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD”, which begins almost identically:

One of the problems with the EPA’s Endangerment TSD is the nearly complete disregard of observed trends in a wide array of measures which by and large show that despite decades of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. population does not seem to have been adversely affected by any vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts that may have arisen (to the extent that any at all have actually occurred as the result of any human-induced climate changes).

The following paragraph is identical in both, except for the figure numbers, of course:

For instance, despite the overall rise in U.S. and global average temperatures for the past 30 years, U.S. crop yields have increased (Figure 2), the population’s sensitivity to extreme heat has decreased (Figure 3), and our general air quality has improved (Figure 4). Further, there has been no long-term increase in weather-related property damage once changes in inflation, population size, and population wealth are accounted for (an essential step in any temporal comparison). All of these trends are in the opposite sense from those described in the EPA’s Endangerment TSD.

And, once again, all the figures are included.

That is what gets me about the denialists, no matter how f'ed up the the thing is they will support 100%. At least it is predictable and shows the complete disregard for the truth.

My 2 cents.

Everybody's entitled to an opinion, more so in the Land of the Free than in anywhere else, and that's really a good thing. Al Carlin is entitled to his opinion, and we ought to celebrate that. And Carlin's degree in physics and his experience with mathematical models helps his opinion

I'm not convinced it takes a real NASA rocket scientist to figure out whether the planet is warming up, cooling down or staying the same; if a "million" properly calibrated thermometers around the planet show the temperature going up, well, it's probably warming up, and vice versa. Similarly, how many rocket scientists does it take to measure glaciers melting, less snow preciptation, or the increasingly speed of the ice sheets towards the oceans? Carlin's lack of specific climatology education and trade is not grounds for discrediting him.

Neither is his age. That was a low blow and that's all I'm going to say about that.

The absurd is to deny the risks, and worse, start a criminal investigation on alledged cover-up and suppression of information discrediting global warming. As I wrote above, it does not take a real NASA rocket scientist to see the glaciers melting in front of our very eyes.

My 2 cents. Try to make a buck.

VMarcHart wrote:My 2 cents.

Everybody's entitled to an opinion, more so in the Land of the Free than in anywhere else, and that's really a good thing. Al Carlin is entitled to his opinion, and we ought to celebrate that. And Carlin's degree in physics and his experience with mathematical models helps his opinion

No one is denying his opinion. There are tens of thousands of people with Carlin’s qualifications that are also allowed their opinions.

VMarcHart wrote:I'm not convinced it takes a real NASA rocket scientist to figure out whether the planet is warming up, cooling down or staying the same; if a "million" properly calibrated thermometers around the planet show the temperature going up, well, it's probably warming up, and vice versa. Similarly, how many rocket scientists does it take to measure glaciers melting, less snow preciptation, or the increasingly speed of the ice sheets towards the oceans? Carlin's lack of specific climatology education and trade is not grounds for discrediting him.

You are correct, but neither should Carlin be portrayed as an expert on climate, which he obviously is not. His report speaks for the grounds to discredit his lack of understanding the science.

VMarcHart wrote:Neither is his age. That was a low blow and that's all I'm going to say about that.

His age is very germane to the discussion since his bachelor’s degree in physics was most likely obtained some 50 years ago. For the length of that time he was not involved professionally in practical science related to his under graduate degree.

Lore wrote:

VMarcHart wrote:My 2 cents.

Everybody's entitled to an opinion, more so in the Land of the Free than in anywhere else, and that's really a good thing. Al Carlin is entitled to his opinion, and we ought to celebrate that. And Carlin's degree in physics and his experience with mathematical models helps his opinion

No one is denying his opinion. There are tens of thousands of people with Carlin’s qualifications that are also allowed their opinions.

VMarcHart wrote:I'm not convinced it takes a real NASA rocket scientist to figure out whether the planet is warming up, cooling down or staying the same; if a "million" properly calibrated thermometers around the planet show the temperature going up, well, it's probably warming up, and vice versa. Similarly, how many rocket scientists does it take to measure glaciers melting, less snow preciptation, or the increasingly speed of the ice sheets towards the oceans? Carlin's lack of specific climatology education and trade is not grounds for discrediting him.

You are correct, but neither should Carlin be portrayed as an expert on climate, which he obviously is not. His report speaks for the grounds to discredit his lack of understanding the science.

VMarcHart wrote:Neither is his age. That was a low blow and that's all I'm going to say about that.

His age is very germane to the discussion since his bachelor’s degree in physics was most likely obtained some 50 years ago. For the length of that time he was not involved professionally in practical science related to his under graduate degree.

Lore, you're too jumpy on this thing. I forgot to spell it: S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

VMarcHart wrote:Lore, you're too jumpy on this thing. I forgot to spell it: S-A-R-C-A-S-M.

Well, thanks for allowing me to get those points out anyway...

From TPM

"I worked very hard," he added.

(Carlin)

Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v ... Ctrl-c,Ctrl-v ... Ctrl-c,Ctrl-v

My index finger had a cramp.

green_achers wrote:"Denier" is a bit of shorthand and might be a little intellectually lazy, but it doesn't come close to the name-calling that occurs on the other side.

You're completely deluded. I "name-called" only because you out yourself.

Use of "denier" is not "shorthand." It is a code word used by religious zealots. In the case of WWII, it's Zionist zealots. In the case of GW, it's mostly scientifically ignorant zealots.

If you use the word "denier," then you are a religious zealot, and you have earned the name.

So don't accuse me of randomly name calling. Not at all. If somebody wants to have a rational conversation, I don't pull out names.

But when English majors who don't know CO2 from C3PO light their candles and start chanting in unison, "DENIER! DENIER!" then they can take their children-of-the-corn horseshit and shove it up their looney asses.

You use the word "denier," you immediately bring the names down on yourself.

Well, there you have it, folks. A perfect illustration of the irrationality and bitterness on the whacko side. Now I guess our poor little schmuto is beating a hasty retreat to his little bunker to let the grownups try to clean things up. Anyone want to start a pool for when the chickenshit comes slinking back?