Michelle Malkin » EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2009 12:30 AM

My syndicated column below slams the EPA for suppressing inconvenient truths about Obama’s politicized global warming agenda. As I blogged early Wednesday afternoon, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released e-mails detailing how eco-bureaucrats stifled a senior researcher who challenged the agency’s reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas “public endangerment” finding.

Breaking late tonight, CEI has released the draft version of the censored study that the EPA doesn’t want you to see. You can read the entire 98-page document here.

Here is the preface, which begins, “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.” No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin (click on image for full-size):

***

EPA’s game of global warming hide-and-seek
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The Obama administration doesn’t want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don’t want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion-dollar, thousand-page “cap and trade” bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. 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… 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.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do – “move forward on endangerment.” Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested “comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.” Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can’t hear you.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or “retired” by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.

Malkin is author of the forthcoming “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Printer Friendly

comments (109)

trackbacks (75)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On June 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, jaaakemm said:

Shared my outrage with my more or less useless Ohio congressmen & senators this morning.

==================

Vote NO on the “Climate Reform” bill.

As if you arrogant, out of touch *&=(#*$#+%^ can “reform” the climate.

I’ll speculate that you have not yet read this bill or even pondered its very negative consequences.

If you do not possess the required time, energy, resources or wherewithal to read a congressional bill what makes you think you have the mettle to change the climate?

This bill represents selected commie-marxist, liberal, leftist special interest groups, entities & NGOs desires to feed at the public trough at the expense of my income and liberty. Let’s not forget to also mention that it represents an exponential increase of government power & control over every aspect of taxpayers’ lives.

Uubama calls it the “jobs bill” using the convoluted Democrat Party vernacular, but all it really represents is a set of massive new taxes on every aspect of taxpayers existence.

DO NOT pass this bill.

I need to go now; I need to discover the location of my torches & pitchforks in case their future use is required.
#102

On June 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On June 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, prendad said:

This administration is nothing but an accumulation of arrogant asses that prace around like roosters crowing an endless stream of nonsense. They have done more harm to our country in a few months that I ever could have imagined. I joined the military a long time ago thinking that we were going to war with the USSR and I wanted to be up front when it started. I was fully prepared to fight for my country, but I never thought that the battle would be with my own government.

There is No Discernable Difference between the agenda of the Communist Party USA (”The Road to Socialism USA“)
and the agenda of the Democratic party.

Our Government is now controlled by Democratic Socialist Communists.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete and utter hoax, perpetrated by the Democratic Socialist Communists in order to bring “imperialist” capitalist nations “to their knees” via massive taxes that “spread the wealth” with the rest of the world.

The magnitude of the deception is immense, and they will use “any means necessary” to cover-up the truth.
#103

On June 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, Khyris said:

So, found exculpatory evidence for an innocent man on Death Row?

“The Governor and the penal system has decided to move forward on execution, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision…”
#104

On June 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, pueblo1032 said:

What I’m doing today is calling ALL the members of THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES from my state, and telling them if they vote for this SHAM, I will fire them in 2010…Getting a lot of SO WHAT from the DEMS, but GOP seems to be listening…
#105

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm, lgm said:

I read the emails and a few pages of the report. The author of the draft report, Alan Carlin, is not a climate scientist, but an Economist/Operations Research specialist. His superiors criticized his draft report because it relies on data that has not been subjected to peer review. This is a 100% correct criticism (if true) and definitely grounds for withholding the document.

The emails also make clear that Carlin’s job at the EPA was not climate science and that he was neglecting his actual EPA duties by writing the report.

Think of it from the EPA point of view. A report from the EPA carries the weight of the US government behind it. The administrator certainly would want to wait until he was satisfied that the report and its conclusions were sound before releasing the report. Carlin wanted to bypass these safeguards and put his personal non-expert opinion out in an official EPA document.
#106

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm, rocketman said:

***
Hi PRENDAD #72. Great post–short, concise, on target–and from the heart. I feel exactly like you do–the enemy isn’t at the gates–they are inside the new President Obama (PBUH) administration and over 50 percent of the new U.S.S.A. House of “Representatives” and Senate (House of “Lords”).
***
Thank you for your service keeping the Russki wolf away from our door. We may be seeing them biting away in the near future–Deja Vu all over again.
***
John Bibb
***
#107

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, CleanGuy said:

Why can’t we have a big volcano blow up and cool everything down for a few years? Where is Mt. Pinatubo when you need it? Can’t have Mt. Redoubt explode or Gov. Palin would be blamed as the cause.
#108

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. —
13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
#109

On June 26th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, Khyris said:

His superiors criticized his draft report because it relies on data that has not been subjected to peer review. This is a 100% correct criticism (if true)

http://tinyurl.com/ktlems

A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.

The source, who chooses not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said that Carlin was rebuffed in his attempt to introduce scientific evidence that does not accord with the EPA’s view of global warming, which largely relies on IPCC reports. The source also saw Carlin’s report and said that it was ‘based on 8 points of peer-reviewed, recent and relevant scientific publications’ that cast doubt on the wisdom of regulating CO2 as a pollutant

This is a 100% correct criticism of Carlin’s superiors (if true) and definitely grounds for considering the document.

Think of it from the EPA point of view. … Carlin wanted to bypass these safeguards and put his personal non-expert opinion out in an official EPA document.

This is utter nonsense and here’s why:
The EPA administrator himself is a “non-expert” who is relying on his own non-”expert” interpretation of scientific studies. This is not “bypassing safeguards” because the administrator is not CREATING the scientific reports out of thin air. Neither did Carlin “create” these studies and demand his opinion of them be passed off uncritically in the EPA report.
Pure fantasy… Didn’t happen.

Carlin having the opinion that there EXIST scientific studies which the administrator has not taken into consideration is not “bypassing safeguards”.
ANYONE can acknowledge the tangible existence of something to which others are currently ignorant, and to demand “expert” qualifications to point out the obvious in such fashion is pure gamesmanship.
Carlin’s “opinion” that these studies are damning to warming alarmists is irrelevent to the fact that the administration refused to perform its legally mandated duty to review all evidence provided and formulate an opinion of their own either confirming or rejecting Carlin’s conclusion. That was rather the POINT of soliciting “open comment.”

Please leave any and all feedback regarding the truth of this comment. Unless you disagree with my notion of how awesome it is, in which case just STFU.
#110

On June 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, Khyris said:

P.S. the cheap shot about “neglecting duties” by writing this report is rock stupid.

Are YOU automatically neglecting your duties at work by posting here? Is everyone now incapable of multitasking or performing important tasks on their spare time? Or are you just making an ASSumption out of yourself?
#111

On June 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, Khyris said:

Alan Carlin, who had hosted a series of seminars featuring peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with the IPCC reports (but were unattended by members of the workgroup developing the Endangerment Finding) went public
#114

On June 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm, Dimsdale said:

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm, lgm said:

I read the emails and a few pages of the report. The author of the draft report, Alan Carlin, is not a climate scientist, but an Economist/Operations Research specialist. His superiors criticized his draft report because it relies on data that has not been subjected to peer review. This is a 100% correct criticism (if true) and definitely grounds for withholding the document.

The emails also make clear that Carlin’s job at the EPA was not climate science and that he was neglecting his actual EPA duties by writing the report.

Think of it from the EPA point of view. A report from the EPA carries the weight of the US government behind it. The administrator certainly would want to wait until he was satisfied that the report and its conclusions were sound before releasing the report. Carlin wanted to bypass these safeguards and put his personal non-expert opinion out in an official EPA document.

And the highlighted text reveals the crux of your problem: they won’t wait, and won’t even review, conclusions (real, peer reviewed conclusions) that run contrary to the party line.

And as Michelle so aptly notes, who of those running the EPA are climate scientists?

Al McGartland, his boss, is an economist. On what basis is he quashing the report?
#116

On June 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm, WarTip said:

And LGM, you seem to be disregarding that little LAW that requires the admission of all evidence that was used as well as any and all evidence that was discarded as well?

Legality? It is certainly not a mere technicality if it is a Law or are you saying that the law does not matter?
#117

On June 26th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, sbw999 said:

Another day…another corrupt action taken by this twisted administration. In days gone by, we could count on the free press to inform the public of travesties such as this. No more…the press is in bed with the whores of this adminstration and their special interests. If the 2010 elections doesnt reverse the political trend, say good bye to the “real” America we knew… forever.
#119

On June 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, MoGal said:

Here is a link for 31,478 scientists that are skeptics. The petition started in 1998. It has been around for a long time. It really galls me that the press says there are no real scientists that are skeptics. I did not find this via google – the lousy PC group.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
#123

On June 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm, prendad said:

On June 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm, rocketman said:
We may be seeing them biting away in the near future–Deja Vu all over again.

Hi John, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. A good quote, one that I used many times when I was instructing the young pups. I am older now, can’t run the mile and a half in ten minutes any more, but I have 4 M-1 Garands in perfect condition and lots of ammunition. Always on alert. . .
Rick Prendergast.
#124

On June 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, lgm said:

Neither Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, nor Princeton’s Will Happer is an expert on climate science. Neither has any publications in the area. Giaever made his remarks off the cuff and has not acted on them before or since.

Alan Carlin is not a scientist. He’s not in a science branch of the EPA. His boss also is not a scientist. If he wants to write private reports at home on his own time, fine. He should not be representing these as official EPA documents. His boss determined, the emails don’t say how, that Carlin’s report was not well enough prepared to become an official EPA document.

MoGal said(#88)

Here is a link for 31,478 scientists that are skeptics. The petition started in 1998. …

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

I looked at the list. It does not have professional affiliations. A serious list would allow you to judge the signers and even google them:

A. B. Calswell, Professor of ** at ** university

C. D. Evans, Research Staff ** corporation,

The petition lacks this information and therefore is useless.
#126

On June 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm, Khyris said:

Alan Carlin is not a scientist. He’s not in a science branch of the EPA. His boss also is not a scientist.

And the point would be? You must be a scientist otherwise you are incapable of reading reports written by scientists and making reasonable conclusions? Anyone referring credible scientific reports for review, by mere virtue of being a non-scientist, this automatically makes the report uncredible? By that absurd standard you would merely PROVE that both the EPA and Congress are incapable of drafting informed regulation about any scientific matter.

His boss determined, the emails don’t say how, that Carlin’s report was not well enough prepared to become an official EPA document.

Actually, he DID say, rather explicitly… just in case you missed it, here it is again:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. 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… 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.”

Note the complete lack of any B.S. about it being mis-prepared.
#130

On June 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm, Dimsdale said:

And I reiterate: Al McGartland, his boss, is an economist. On what basis is he quashing the report?
#132

On June 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, Dimsdale said:

Seriously lgm, how do you explain warming before human civilization if the science is settled (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/abs/ngeo.2007.28.html)? The sea levels were 4-6 meters higher than they are now about 120K years ago, and these liberal chicken littles are screaming about a couple of centimeters!
#133

On June 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm, warden said:

On June 26th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, lgm said: I looked at the list. It does not have professional affiliations. A serious list would allow you to judge the signers and even google them:

A. B. Calswell, Professor of ** at ** university

C. D. Evans, Research Staff ** corporation,

The petition lacks this information and therefore is useless.

Reminds me of this.
#134

On June 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, warden said:

And this.

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
#135

On June 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, WarTip said:

On June 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm, Dimsdale said:

Seriously lgm

Serious and LGM in the same sentence? I am too disheartened to laugh at the moment but that is kinda funny!
#138

On June 26th, 2009 at 8:41 pm, Leatherneck said:

I bet the Goracle will have to get a carbon off set credit for his four houses, and big fat mouth, I mean boat.

This should be a new game to buy at the toy store. I sell you carbon off set credits, but there is only so many to go around. Because you need at least one credit to continue running your pig business, the price just went up. We can call this new game supply and demand of FLATULENCE.
#139

On June 26th, 2009 at 9:07 pm, Khyris said:

I intend to buy a big plot of empty land and call it a “factory.” This will entitle me to an allotment of these whimsical “carbon credits.” I will plant trees on the land and demonstrate a negative net emission of CO2.

I will sell my “factory” produced carbon offsets as if they were a manufactured good in addition to my allotted credits. And if I can’t find private interest, I will always have a guaranteed buyer in whatever dumbass exchange the EPA sets up.

That’s right kiddies, the government is going to entitle me to make MORE money producing NOTHING than producing SOMETHING.

Think I’m the only one who’ll figure that one out? Think about what that discovery is going to do for the real GDP?
#142

On June 26th, 2009 at 11:45 pm, scottthong said:

Tip: Transformers 2: Complete with the true-to-life amateurishness of President Obama
#143

On June 26th, 2009 at 11:46 pm, scottthong said:

Transformers 2 mini review: Complete with the true-to-life amateurishness of President Obama
#145

On June 27th, 2009 at 4:56 am, a crapweasel said:

The GOP died a long time ago.
#146

On June 27th, 2009 at 7:18 am, jamesgreenidge said:

The awful corruptive thing about the EPA here is that it can “recruit” all the supportive academic/ corporate scientists it needs for this bogus issue by merely dangling a “green” (and I don’t mean environment) carrot in front of them.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
#149

On June 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am, imjustsaying said:

Reminiscent of the suppressed reports that Iraq had no WMD.
#150

On June 27th, 2009 at 10:49 am, fulldroolcup said:

Wanna test a liberal’s knowledge of the environment?

I’ve found asking them this question reveals a lot:

“Aside from water vapor, CO2 and other greenhouse gases, what’s the atmosphere’s most abundant element?

9 times out of 10 they will blurt out “oxygen”, when the answer is nitrogen (by almost 4-to-1). Together they make up roughly 99% of the atmosphere.

Then ask them what percentage of the atmophere is CO2?

They almost all have no clue. (Answer: 0.038%)

Yet they will claim “the science” is settled that runaway CO2 is destroying the planet, when they themselves don’t understand the basics.

Try it!!

Make sure you howl with laughter when you catch your lib expert in his abysmal ignorance.
#151

On June 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am, DBNinKY said:

By what criteria or standards does ECONOMIST Al McGartland present enough educational or real-world expertise to even qualify for his EPA position, let alone to sit in judgment of the hard, earnest research of Mr. Carlin!
#153

On June 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm, lgm said:

fulldroolcup said (#104):

Wanna test a liberal’s knowledge of the environment?

What matters is that they know who knows — scientists, not Rush Limbaugh.

DBNinKY said (#105):

By what criteria or standards does ECONOMIST Al McGartland present enough educational or real-world expertise to even qualify for his EPA position,

He’s an economist in the economics branch, like his subordinate Carlin. They are not climate scientists. Neither on is in the climate science division.
#155

On June 27th, 2009 at 2:53 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

Algore isn’t a scientist in any shape or form, yet he gets to make $100 million in 9 years preaching fake “science” and stupid, gullible, Obama-voting sheeple buy right into it.

Hopefully, we can put a stop to nonsense like this when we get REAL legislators into office in 2010. Hopefully the USA will still be standing by then. Obama is slowly wrecking this country.

His so-called pork plan signed in February has resulted in 1.6 million jobs LOST.

And this idiotic so-called crap and tax bill will send another 1 million to the jobless list.

Thank you morons, thank you idiots with a 2nd grade reading level who voted this incompetent poser teleprompter in chief as our “president”.
#161

On June 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm, DBNinKY said:

Algore isn’t a scientist in any shape or form, yet he gets to make $100 million in 9 years preaching fake “science” and stupid, gullible, Obama-voting sheeple buy right into it.

Correct, and the Democrats in charge are playing along; they know if they build up Gore into some green-icon, younger voters may look to him for enviro-policy concerns and keep voting Democrat.

For example, why is economist Al McGartland – with no formal or expertise in the natural sciences – keeping back Mr. Carlin’s objectively researched report?

No man is a source citation unto himself.

Mr. Carlin’s report (assumptively) references the compiled works and analysis of published scientists in support of his arguments/thesis. Yet McGartland, with no discernible knowledge in earth science or even physical science, stymies the report and for no apparent reason, other than it disputes the meme of Gore and his “green” followers.
#177

On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm, nuss said:

Facts??? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!! Sadly, this is apparently the “true” philosophy of the Obama camp and his propaganda machine (MSM) and many of the gullible sheeple of this country who voted for “the one”. Short-sighted are those sheeple for they know not what they do. They are looking for immediate gratification (handouts, mortgage forgiveness, food stamps, welfare checks, etc.) when they vote for the likes of Obama. Down the pike, when there are no more freebies, it will be too late to change back to a productive society, and the Obamas will seek to blame the conservatives for the demise of our society. So obamabots, sheeple of our nation, enjoy it while you can…the rest of us are not planning to continue supporting parasites and corrupt politicians forever.