« Such An Ass. | Main | AIP Column: The UK's National Health Service and the Ford Pinto School of Cost Analysis »

Did the EPA supress a negative global warming study in order to boost "cap and trade"?

Remember when liberals went nuts a couple of years ago over allegations that the Bush White House reprimanded NASA meteorologist Dr. James Hansen for his outspoken opinions about global warming?

Well get a load of this:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained internal EPA e-mails that show the agency willfully and recklessly disregarded scientific data that undermined the bureaucracy's global warming zealotry. This information is especially relevant as Congress rushes to pass the cap-and-trade nightmare on Friday.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman has notified the EPA and requested that the internal communications and suppressed study be released to the public and added to the public record. Will another whistleblower be disappeared? Note especially this warning to the dissenting scientist: "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."


The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:

1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;

2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA's climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin's view that "the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature." It goes on to point out that the new studies "explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models." (Emphases added);

3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin's study. "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." (Emphasis added);

4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating " I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change."

Mr. McGartland's emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin's study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA's proposed position.

Why, all of the sudden, would research studies and data that contradict the IPCC's hallowed global warming models be so dangerous that EPA officials would conspire to suppress them? Would it have to do with the massive (1200+ pages that most assuredly no one has actually read) cap and trade bill now before the House of Representatives?

I thought the Obama Administration and the Democratic party were all about "science." Silly me -- I guess they are only interested in the "science" that advances embryonic stem cell harvesting, late-term abortion, health care rationing, and global warming.

If "cap and trade" passes, here is what we can look forward to:

America's biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today by the U.S. House, refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Imports would need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama's goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida.

"They'll be searching the globe for refined products that don't carry the same level of carbon costs," said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.

We'll also be paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars more for electricity and natural gas each year. Just what we need in the middle of a deepening recession.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did the EPA supress a negative global warming study in order to boost "cap and trade"?:

» Joust The Facts linked with Change In The Air

» walls of the city linked with watch both hands

Comments (17)

The junk science based carb... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The junk science based carbon cap and tax bill is one of those boondoggles that may bring republicans back into power sooner rather than latter. First item of business will be to repeal carbon cap and tax.

Hansen just got arrested at... (Below threshold)

Hansen just got arrested at a celebrity protest over coal mining, incidentally. Mr. Voice Of Independent Science and Assistant Grand Poohbah of Global Warming Scaremongering just lost whatever credibility he had left.

Hansen pretty much lost all... (Below threshold)

Hansen pretty much lost all credibility when he accepted that $250,000 bribe/payoff from the Heinz foundation - the "Heinz Environment Award" - a few years back.

Update: The House has put a... (Below threshold)

Update: The House has put a hold on the vote on the Caps and Trade bill. The Capitol switchboards were jammed with people calling in and saying no

Burn up that fucking switch... (Below threshold)

Burn up that fucking switchboard!

Hansen is a hack!

Hansen should have been fir... (Below threshold)

Hansen should have been fired when he was caught falsifying data. Honest mistake my [email protected]*.

Frankly, I know that some a... (Below threshold)

Frankly, I know that some are inflating the numbers of what it's going to cost the individual if this legislation is passed. But probably not by much. Any time the government tells you what something is going to cost, you need to double, or even triple, the numbers before consideration.

"Hansen just got arrested at a celebrity protest over coal mining, incidentally."

Doesn't surprise me at all. Hansen's always seemed to be a bit on the edge of something. And Daryl Hannah too. I was shocked at her photo. At one time she was the hottest babe in Hollywood. Now she's gotten all .... slovenly. It seems to happen to all those who are "perpetually offended". The ugly inside comes out.

OysterDo you think t... (Below threshold)

Do you think that Letterman would call that her slutty look?

The problem for the global ... (Below threshold)

The problem for the global warmers is that their phallic symbol of global temperature prematurely climaxed in 1998, stopped going up like some stud on viagra and started deflating.

Or as the actress said to the global warmer:

"A pity ... it looked so promising".

Looks like the bill passed ... (Below threshold)
John S:

Looks like the bill passed the House -- by 7 votes. Cap and trade will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

As we have discovered recen... (Below threshold)

As we have discovered recently here in Australia, government email can be faked and when this happens there can be confusion, chaos and the rolling of heads.

Our only hope is for a transparent and bullsh*t free examination of the facts, with appropriate action taken on the strength of those findings. Anything else is political football.

I know I've said this befor... (Below threshold)

I know I've said this before, about the certitude some have on global warming, but, here goes again...

Let's try for some perspective, time-wise.

For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line about 4.6 kilometers long (a bit under 3 miles). That would represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth at 1,000,000 years/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would represent a THOUSAND years.

That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities, with some to spare.

Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line would be about 46 blocks.

The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65 meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).

The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet; your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its' dimensions).

What we call "modern" man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm, TWO finger-widths on that line).

Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on that line).

Fahrenheit's thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you're approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter of a grain of salt).

The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.

And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate predictions, and mandate actions based on them?

I live about three miles west of some of Houston's major downtown buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.

Looking at that time-line of Earth's history (the universe's may be four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it, the notion of asserting that ANY science has been "settled" strikes me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in "only a politician could possibly believe that").


Obama claimed that the aver... (Below threshold)

Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ""It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions."

Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans' famous quote:

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.

Business doesn't pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it... and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama's threadbare "bipartisanship" spiel ought to have their head examined.


An economist "hobbyist" at ... (Below threshold)

An economist "hobbyist" at the EPA who took up Global Warming study as a side project/hobby isn't exactly what I'd call "scientific". Just me though, I also don't believe that Intelligent Design is "science" either. But hey, science is just whatever theory supports your own opinions anyway, right?

" and while quarantining th... (Below threshold)

" and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever"

You mean input like "I'll vote against it no matter what it says"? Let's be serious here - like it or hate it, it's a joke to think that the Republican party would offer anything ANYTHING "meaningful" at this point. They've used their minority opinion since January 2009 to do nothing other than slam ideas, rarely offering any of their own.

I wish we'd have more debate about this too. I wish the REpublicans would push back with facts and ideas and philosophy and alternatives. But let's be serious: the political game at play is the Democrats working to send out their own ideas after being out in the cold for so long, while the Republicans are owning the "if it's their idea it's bad and we'll hate it on general principle" angle.

Jake, How long were ... (Below threshold)

How long were the democrats out of power?
They've had the majority now since 2006.
And your argument is what, the republicans
resisted going along with a bill being passed
that has not been read by the democrats who
passed it? So. They should have been as
attentive and responsible as the democrats
in voting?
Do you sign contracts without reading? If so
then I can understand where you're coming from.
Apparently you believe there are never any
unintended consequences.

Highly entertaining...... (Below threshold)

Highly entertaining...

But Al Carlin is not a scientist or expert in any sense of the word on climate or global warming. He's a number-crunching economist at the EPA, has been for 37 years.

By his own admission, global warming is a hobby of his, and he wrote a MEMO (not a report), unrequested by the EPA. Dispite this, it was passed on to EPA climate scientists for review. His memo was, to say the least, panned a just so much wasted paper (which is why he was told to go back to doing his job, not climate science). It was never suppressed, and was never included in any reports as it's just meaningless material.
FYI, dispite solid evidence (ie. from NASA's Goddard Science Center) the earth is warming (based on global average temps, not one year taken out of context) Carlin thinks the earth is getting cooler...

Oh well...better luck next time at finding something "suppressed"...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy