EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change

XXL TideFan

[sarcasm]Settled and non political[/sarcasm]

REST HERE

__________________

red55

Scant evidence for charge that EPA ‘suppressed’ dissent

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

XXL TideFan

*ding*..........made you salivate...didn't it?

__________________

martin

1. worldnet daily is miserable

2. an economist is not unqualified to draw conclusions about global warming. that is exactly who we need thinking about it. the whole issue is about economic damage. do we get made poorer and sadder from rising temperatures and seal levels or whatever, or the measures that may or not prevent those things from happeneing.

all the worlds problem are about recource management, where we direct our energy and capital. everytime somebody has the audacity to ask which problems are worth investment, the response is crying and anthropomorphization of precious earth, as if people are not a concern at all.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

True if it were an economic conclusion and part of his job. But an economist is unqualified to challenge the scientific conclusions of his agency which is full of distinguished environmental scientists doing their job properly.

Look, this guy has a job to do economics but he wants do do some other job that he is unqualified for and his boss told him no and go back to your own work. This happens all over and all the time in research science with its many defined disciplines. To properly challenge inside or outside of your discipline, you have to establish some credentials by getting your objections published in refereed scientific journals. That means being able to back up your claims publicly to all of the exerts in the field. He has not done this.

Now and then a patent clerk discovers Relativity. But he must prove his thesis scientifically, get the work reviewed and published, and it must withstand scientific scrutiny. Einstein did this. This guy Carlin did not.

That is only part of the issue, and a consequential part at that.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

Slashdot News Story | EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming

"'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'"

"not a scientist"? a degree in physics from caltech seems like a decent qualification.the guy's report: "warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."


i mean, when you are considering the economic impact of decisions based on science, why would you ask a guy who has degrees in both, from the best possible schools, and years and years of experience? who is this guy to think a doctorate in economics from MIT and 38 years of working for the EPA makes him qualified?


this guy has been writing about "about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing. "

"the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists"

E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming | Politics and Law - CNET News

under barack obama the government will be open and wonderful.

"Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic."

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

A BS in physics does not make him a climatologist. His PhD and his career body of work has been in economics.

His career body of work in economics is impressive. His work in physics apparently did not extend past his undergraduate degree. His work in climatology is essentially non-existent, with no papers published in climatological journals.

Obviously, a degree in physics and another in economics doesn't make him a climatologist. That's fine, but he was challenging his agencies climatologists, not his agencies economists. He has a boss and a job. When you ignore your boss, lack proper credentials, and don't do your job, there are consequences.

"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide). There may be in the future." -- Alan Carlin

From the EPA: “Several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”

Grow up, mahtin, and maybe you'll be taken more seriously.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

PURPLE TIGER

When it comes to Global Warming, one thing has definitely been proven...certain people are guaranteed to profit from fear.

__________________

martin

i wasa critical of this story at first, coming from worldnet daily. but now it is being picked up all over the place, even by the new york times:

"Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA's economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor's degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said"

mr carlin, red wants me to tell you that you are unqualified.

Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate 'Endangerment' Proposal - NYTimes.com

isnt the science relevant, not whether the conclusions help a legal case?

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

Yet his draft internal memo is not addressing the economics of global climate change control. It is attempting to address the climatological evidence and scientific basis behind EPA's policy on global warming. The EPA scientists support the IPCC and consensus of global experts in climatology. He's out of his speciality here, he has not gotten these ideas published in a refereed scientific journal, he has not even gotten them past his own agency's editors, but he has now managed to get them published in the right wing media.

Carlin reaches six main conclusions in his abstract, lettered A-B (pages iv-v). But his supporting evidence in the body of the report are inconclusive and subject to challenge. All six are dismissing climatological scientific conclusions, not "cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change".

Scientific relevance is exactly what I'm talking about when when an economist or a waiter dismisses the worlds consensus of climatological experts on a matter of climatology.

There is a scientifically proper way of doing this, but Carlin has not done so. He's garnering media support, not scientific support. In fact, give this story a week and let's see what response he gets from the climatology community.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

again, the ipcc is a united nations group. i think we both know that means you cant believe a word of it. there were plenty of dissenters with the ipcc as well, they were ignored or quit or misrepresented.

of course not, his organization told him they were politically inconvenient and had to be shut out. they didnt say his conclusions were not accurate.


yeah lets stop pretending you read it.

apparently not subject to challenge, dismissed immediately for political expediency.

sounds good, amigo.

also, red, do you support the cap and trade policies in this bill that just passed the house?

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

Nonsense. The IPCC is a UN-sponsored international program, not a UN agency with UN employees. The scientists come from everywhere and represent their universities or companies or nations. Their scientific reputations are on the line, not the UN's.

You still don't understand scientific consensus do you?

Some day you too may have a real job in a giant company or agency. Then you will understand that you don't get to set your company's/agency's policy just because you disagree with it.

I did read it. Days ago. Unlike you, I actually bother to do some basic and obvious research, like read the actual memo, instead of taking some right-wing bloggers word for what it says.

Your characterization, not the EPA's. Come on martin, there isn't a single piece of original research in the memo. The guy cherrypicks data from a dozen published papers that seem to support his conclusions, but he ignores many, many more that do not. Furthermore he bypasses the scientific journals where his notions would be subject to challenge. It's an old writer's ploy that rarely survives critical review by peers and editors.

I haven't read it it, got a link?

What? You haven't read it either?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

i dont need to read it. i oppose it in principle.

you should read about it and tell us if you support or oppose it. and by read about it i mean read the polls and see if everyone else favors it so you can decide.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

"I don't know what I'm talking abouit, but I'm agin' it!"

Ahhhh, your usual resignation. When you see checkmate coming, change the subject to a personal criticism of your opponent.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

i know what cap and trade is. if there were a bill favoring communism i would oppose that also, without reading it. i have these guiding "principles". these "principles" allow me to know what i favor and oppose.


do you favor or oppose the current bill? yunno it is important that we protect the environment.

hey that is great. so do you favor or oppose this current bill?

red, the unfortunate thing here is that you cannot pretend i am not giving you enough specifics for you to decide. there is an actual bill, that one you could in theory have an actual position about. i know that sounds terrifying, but give it a try.

__________________
thanks for reading.

red55

I have a guiding principle that I don't make declarative statements about something I know nothing about.

Still waiting for the link. Unlike you, I'm not going to imagine what it says and then argue about it.

No, the ridiculous thing here is that you don't care about the bill and have never read it. You just want me to argue against your, uhhh . . . "principles". Sorry martin, I just don't give a chit about your quaint notions of how the world ought to work.

But if you would link the document that you oppose, read it and tell me what you dislike about it, I will be happy to read it and perhaps agree or disagree with you. I might even have a third position. Or I still may not give a chit. But you will have to do better than expect me to argue with you about something you don't even care enough about to actually read.

Forgotten all about Carlin, have you?

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

of course not.

[qoute]Still waiting for the link. Unlike you, I'm not going to imagine what it says and then argue about it.[/quote]

i am sure with your researching skills you can uncover it. then you can let us know if you favor or oppose it. good citizens educate themselves about what their government is doing, that is the pragmatic and reasonable way.

interestingly, greenpeace opposes the bill. they say it is a huge corporate gieaway. i am sure they are right. republicans oppose the bill because it is a big government boondoggle. i am sure they are right as well. how can i know this without reading the thousand-page bill? magic.

i oppose governmet management in general. i know how these things work. ethanol is a great example. huge waste of money, corrupt and counterproductive.

and i know this may be hard for you to understand, but i actually know enough about cap and trade to oppose it. i know it is an impossibility for you to ever know enough about anything to decide.

thats nice. but i am curious about your notions about how things should work. do you favor or oppose the recent climate bill?

try .gov websites.

no chance you would agree or disagree. you have no principles and refuse to take a position until you find out what is politically safest.


dont worry. pretty soon the polls will come out and americans will either approve or oppose the effects of the bill. then you will know where you stand.

i am not asking you to argue anything. i am simply asking you, do you favor or oppose this bill?

__________________
thanks for reading.

Hawker45

[quote=martin;944285]interestingly, greenpeace opposes the bill. they say it is a huge corporate gieaway.[quote]

GreenpeaceUSA BlogGreenpeace opposes Waxman-Markey - Greenpeace Member Blog

I think, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that Greenpeace and the other green folks oppose the bill because it doesn't go "far enough" in putting demands/requirements on big business.

carry on......

martin

which is the same thing i am saying. it is a big corporate giveaway that accomplishes nothing, according to greenpeace:

"It’s been resoundingly panned both by groups on the left, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who see it as an enormous corporate giveaway,"

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/mo...passes_ca.html

like your link says:

"House Democrats have worked extensively with the coal industry"

even if you favor helping the environment or some other pointless bull****, the bill is bad. it is a big government boondoggle, that will filter money from regular folks into the big businesses that obama favors.

__________________
thanks for reading.

PURPLE TIGER

Are you suggesting that the Democrats would lie to the American people so they could eliminate jobs in businesses that favor Republicans to create jobs that would favor Democrats?

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

If the climate is rising, I'm guessing it's from the hot air coming from the likes of the Al Gores of the world.

Here's a factual picture from Roswell.



Keep the world safe and clean but stop the hoax!

__________________

red55

Nope, if you are too lazy to argue your objections, it dies right there. I won't respond if you can't produce an issue.

Good for you. I don't care.

Then spell out what it is about the cap and trade proposal that is "bad". Just stating that you disagree will all government endeavors is not an arguement.

Act like a child and you'll be treated like one.

Me, too. I'm curious if you actually know one goddamn thing about cap and trade. Why is it so bad?

Follow your own advice.

Typical martin sleaziness when he talks himself into a corner and can't get out. Attack the opponent personally. I make my positions known here every day and in detail. No one buys your childish insults.

Tell me where you stand and why and I'll respond right now. Polls got nothing to do with it--except as a convenient way for you to distract the topic again. You got your ass kicked on Carlins "scientific" objections, so you wet off into "cap and trade". But you fear to debate me on it, so you complain that you can't be bothered and by the way, red has no principles and can't make a decision.

Here is a direct challenge: Spell out your objections to cap and trade or STFU.

__________________


"When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it." --Carl Sagan

martin

hey thats great.

does red55 support or oppose the recent climate bill?

the issue is the recent bill, it has passed the house already. are you familiar with it?

does red55 favor or oppose it?

here i will help:

choose:

1. red opposes the bill
2. red favors the bill
3. red has no position

to be clear, i am asking you if you favor this recent bill. i am not asking you to argue with me or disagree with me or defend your position. i am simply asking, do you agree or disagree with the current bill.

what i think is not the issue i am asking about. i am not asking you to demolish my stupid opinions. i am asking you take a position on something, just once.

does red55 favor or oppose this recent climate bill? if he were congressman, would he have voted for it?

this is an example of how one might answer a question: they might say "yes". or perhaps "no". give it a try.

wonderful. what is your position on the climate bill?

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

i am gonna briefly discuss some problems with cap and trade. but red, do me a favor, dont let this distract you. please see if you can take a stand on the current bill and stop being a spineless coward. dont let my opinions here distract you. you concentrate on taking an opinion of some kind on the current bill. like a horse with blinders, keep focused on the current question on your plate.

of course since i already have a stated position, i can go about discussing it. but you are still at the starting point, having no position or principle of any kind. but together we can work on that. concentrate for noW on the current bill, whether you oppose or favor it. dont lET my discussion of details derail you.


cap and trade hurts the economy while not accomplishing its goal (which is not even a goal you actually need to accomplish).

“A carbon tax might not be job-destroying if it were uniform across the globe, but I am skeptical that such uniformity is even remotely feasible...
"large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.” - alan greenspan

"it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax" - warren buffet

now, obama promised to give a tax break to the poor and middle classes. but they spend a far larger percentage of their income on energy, and they will be punished harshly by cap and trade. their jobs will be exported to countries that do not give a damn about carbon emissions. massive amounts of money will be taken from americans and given to foreign countries, and that is normally ok, but it is terrible when it is forced by stupid regulations and not normal market forces.

__________________
thanks for reading.

martin

ooohh red, big news!

you almost have an opinion now!

Opposition to "cap-and-trade" grows in U.S.: poll

only 52% of american support cap and trade. that must be tough for you when the folks dictating your opinions to you are so evenly split. that explains your reluctance to answer.

but have faith, grasshopper. the polls might swing a bit and give you a slightly more definitive answer soon!

__________________
thanks for reading.

SabanFan

I'm amazed that 52% favor that incredibly horrible piece of crap...err...legislation. There is so much in there that the politicians are not even aware of. The bill is being shoved up our collective asses under the cover of darkness, just like the stimulus bill was. This will cause refineries to shut down, industries to either move away or shut down, increase the cost of energy for everyone of us and enrich no one but a myriad of Government alphabet agencies who will try to administer the damn thing. I am getting real scared of the things that Obama, Pelosi et al are trying to railroad into law like their butts are on fire. Wake up people. Forget this little love affair with the chosen one. We are all getting F'd.

__________________
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Anon