Dude, Where’s My War on Science?
An Attack on EPA’s Policy Process Fails Peer Review
SOURCE: iStockphoto, SP
Conservatives try to expose what they claim is a case of science suppression by the Obama administration—and in the process demonstrate how little they know about science in the first place.
Print
Science, Cultured
Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture. He is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.” (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)
It was probably inevitable. Given the mileage progressives got out of slamming the Bush administration for abusing science, conservatives were bound to bring parallel charges against the Obama administration. There had already been earlier murmurs of such allegations—for instance, in a series of baseless attacks on President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, falsely charging that he fails to recognize the difference between “science” and “policy.” But only now have we seen the first major attempt to invert the “war on science” narrative and use it against the Obama team.
The saga began on June 26, when CBSNews.com’s Declan McCullagh—the journalist responsible for launching the infamous Al Gore/Internet story—breathily reported that the Obama administration Environmental Protection Agency “may have suppressed” a scientific report skeptical of human-caused global warming. Based on internal emails provided by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, McCullagh’s story highlighted the work of a longtime EPA employee named Alan Carlin, an economist at the agency’s National Center for Environmental Economics. Carlin, it turned out, had prepared a 98 page report questioning the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change on multiple fronts. The scandal, McCullagh suggested, was that Carlin’s dissent was not adequately considered in the process leading up to the agency’s recent proposed endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.
In their zeal to find a “war on science” episode to claim as their own, however, these conservatives forgot one essential matter: substance.
Conservatives pounced on the “news”—here was an apparent science whistleblower story that closely paralleled many alleged Bush era scandals. “Are we witnessing the Democrat war on science?” asked Ben Domenech at the New Ledger. The leading global warming skeptic blog, Watts Up With That, soon posted the “censored” internal EPA document, claiming it had been obtained “courtesy of our verified contact at the EPA, who shall remain anonymous”—real cloak and dagger stuff. And Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, who has long been the leading congressional enemy of accurate science on climate change, promptly called for a “criminal investigation” into EPA’s malfeasance—on Fox News, of course.
In their zeal to find a “war on science” episode to claim as their own, however, these conservatives forgot one essential matter: substance. If the claims about climate science in Carlin’s report—co-authored with another EPA employee from the same office, John Davidson—aren’t plausible; if leading climate scientists do not accept them; if they lack all credibility; then where there’s smoke there’s no fire. For not only would the EPA be correct to reject Carlin’s claims on substantive grounds, but indeed, as an expert scientific agency it would be bound by its mandate to do so.
Here’s where conservatives’ claims absolutely falls apart. Carlin is, as has constantly been pointed out in the aftermath of McCullagh’s article, an economics expert, not a climate scientist. And as climate scientists have considered his claims, they have withered.
Climate researcher Gavin Schmidt of NASA, for example, has written a very devastating analysis of the claims made in Carlin’s paper, calling it “a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at.” For instance, much like Washington Post columnist George Will notoriously did earlier this year, Carlin’s report claims the globe is in a cooling trend. This is an egregious misreading of the last 10 or so years of global temperatures, and is based quite literally on a trick: If you begin with the hottest year on record—1998—then of course it looks like we’ve been cooling since then.
The Carlin report also contains numerous other climate science canards, including suggestions that the temperature trends we’ve seen are better understood as a result of solar variability than of human activity—a claim that flies in the face, as Gavin Schmidt puts it, of mountains of peer-reviewed research undertaken to detect climate change and attribute its causes. On a scientific level, this just won’t cut it.
Alan Carlin is simply not James Hansen, arguably the most famous of many scientists who claimed to have had their work suppressed or in some way interfered with during the Bush administration. You will recall that the Bush administration had taken a stance critical of mainstream climate science; Hansen felt compelled to defend it; and then NASA underlings interfered with his access to the media. That’s a vastly different story from the present one: The Obama administration has taken a stance aligned with mainstream climate science; Carlin is criticizing it; and his scientific claims are not standing up very well. Of course the Environmental Protection Agency can’t use them to help make policy. According to the EPA, Carlin’s claims were, in fact, considered—and rejected.
All of which is not to discount the possibility that a real science scandal could emerge under the Obama administration. I rather doubt it will happen on global warming, but surely there could be a scientific issue where a dissenter within the administration advances scientific claims with quite a great deal of merit to them, only to find these claims disregarded or, worse, interfered with in some way. If that happens, I and many others will criticize the administration for it. But first there will have to be some scientific substance to the whistleblower’s case; the claims should be, at minimum, seriously arguable based on the latest and best science. That’s something conservatives have flagrantly failed to understand in the present instance.
It’s precisely that disregard for scientific substance, of course, which explains why they could perpetrate a “war on science” in the first place.
Finally, it’s worth adding that even if they were documented to have occurred, one or a few instances of real scientific suppression by the Obama administration would still not render this administration somehow equivalent to the last in its nefariousness. The core point about the Bush administration is that abuses of science were systematic and legion in number, as documented by myself, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others. And this overwhelming assault on science was unprecedented in modern American politics. Thus far the Obama administration has done nothing remotely comparable.
Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Comments on this article
It’s also worth noting that the “Republican War on Science” has continued, albeit as a guerrilla war. Two recent incidents bear mentioning. First, the Kyl-Roberts-McConnell “PATIENTS” act would ban the use of comparative effectiveness research in federal health policy-making (see http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/17/gop-introduces-bill-to-derail-comparative-effectiveness-research/ ).
Second, consider the attacks on *social* science implicit in the continued hold on Census-Director-nominee Bob Groves’ confirmation by an anonymous Republican senator. As Republican pollster David Hill has written, “On merit, Bob Groves is an exemplary social scientist. No one is more qualified than he to lead data collection that has such vital implications for commerce and industry, not just political parties.” (see http://thehill.com/david-hill/end-hold-on-bob-grovess-nomination-2009-06-16.html)
Episodes like these carry two important lessons. First, the “War on Science,” is not limited to natural sciences, but rather is a broad assault on the role of empiricism in policy making. Second, even if pro-science politicians like President Obama have turned the tide of battle, the war is far from over.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pmThe EPA’s rejection of Carlin’s arguments lacked sufficient sunlight to avoid scrutiny and criticism. While scientists may handle rejections in private, such actions in the public sphere handled privately invite problems. Note in your documents that some researchers disagreed, but that for (insert reasons here) we considered those disagreements were a minority view/outside the realm of consensus/whatever reason you see fit.
It looks like the EPA hid something. Whether or not the something hid mattered is now irrelevant. They ceded the framing of the issue to those who argue cover-up.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:55 pm@David Bruggeman
“It looks like the EPA hid something. Whether or not the something hid mattered is now irrelevant. They ceded the framing of the issue to those who argue cover-up.”
They are conspiracy theorists. If there is zero evidence, they will say there was a successful conspiracy to cover up the real evidence. If there is bad evidence, they will say there was a successful conspiracy to cover up the real evidence. They will shout “conspiracy” no matter what you do or say. Since there is nothing you can do to prevent them from framing the issue dishonestly, I don’t see any reason to worry about it. There is no reason to accommodate them. That’s ceding to them more than just the framing. You are allowing them to dictate your response. You are allowing them to be the arbiters of “valid” information.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pmThis is not strictly a debate about scientific information. By avoiding the appearance of a cover-up the EPA can take away that argument – which usually draws out many more conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t ordinarily wander from their chosen scenarios. The EPA still determines what is valid, they simply should disclose everything that was submitted. Open disclosure like this would also reduce the likelihood that disproportionate attention is placed on outlier submissions. Since it wasn’t a secret, fewer people will cry foul and fewer still will pay attention.
Peruse the comments section of the various blogs and other collaborative web tools you’ll find in the government. The only way those comments are not published is if the terms of service are violated. That will require some kind of incivility, obscenity or hate speech. Otherwise the comment is left for all to see. The government is just as free to ignore the comments as before, but there is one less reason to claim they acted in bad faith. If someone does, they have a better chance of looking foolish than if things were hidden. If things are hidden it’s now more about the lack of disclosure than the validity of the comments.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pmIsn’t the “global warming is a hoax” crowd led by the same type of “scientists” who led the “tobacco is not detrimental to health” group? I don’t recall if it is some of the same people hired by Big Tobacco that are pushing this nonsense about climate change having nothing to do with man-made emissions, or if they just use the same tactics. They are similar in some ways to the creationists/intelligent design proponents…bizarre.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:37 pm@David Bruggeman
I still don’t buy this. NASA thousands of employees and even more thousands of contractors. With so many people, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the accountants or janitors thinks that the Earth is actually a giant cube spinning through space. Does NASA need to include his views in their reports, to avoid inviting criticism and to prove that they aren’t covering anything up? If NASA doesn’t include the cube theory, aren’t they doing the same thing as the EPA?
I guarantee you that if Carlin’s material was included in an EPA report, even as a tiny appendix, the climate denialists would point to it and claim loudly that the EPA really agrees that global climate change is a hoax. These people already misrepresent and lie about the hard scientific data.
You are legitimizing them and allowing them to include random unsupported claims in any government report. It prevents non-experts from being able to separate fact from fiction. It erodes the basic premise of the scientific method: that we actually have an objective way to determine which ideas are useful and which are not.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pmThe EPA can discredit the comment, but by hiding it, they are engaging in a kind of suppression that will attract more attention that the usual passel of cranks.
You’re under the false impression that this is strictly a scientific document. Not even National Academies reports can make that claim.
Carlin was not a janitor or some random employee. He has a background in areas that would have bearing on the policy issues. Again, the EPA can ignore him in the report, but by denying the existence of the comment, you legitimize all arguments of those who uncover the subterfuge. The argument would be that the EPA was dishonest in suppressing Carlin, so it must be dishonest in its other conclusions.
If the EPA can’t effectively address the dubious assertions of someone outside the scientific consensus, it is incompetent.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 amRE: The paragraph starting..”All of which is not to discount the possibility that a real science scandal could emerge under the Obama administration.” I’m a charter member of the EPA HQ professionals union, which we organized, basically, around scientific integrity in the early 1980’s. (I retired – as Senior Scientist, Risk Assessment Division, OPPT-last September and now teach at American University)Since 1986 the union has taken exception to EPA’s unscientific approach to dealing with the toxicity of fluoride in order to protect the USPHS program of national water fluoridation. In 2006 the National Research Council Committee on Fluoride Toxicity, convened under an EPA contract with the National Academy,reported to EPA that its drinking water standards for fluoride wer “not protective of public health,” (which is what the union has been saying since 1986)and recommended that EPA conduct a new risk assessment for a new set of standards. When I last spoke with the Division Director responsible for that risk assessment he told me EPA was waiting for a paper, promised three years ago by its principal first author, that would counter an epidemiology study done under that very author’s direction at Harvard. That study shows a five-fold increased risk of osteosarcoma for pre-adolescent boys who drink “optimally fluoridated” water. The study was hidden from the NRC Committee by that author, but eventaully came to light and has been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
EPA is clearly hoping to avoid being the agency of the death of USPHS’s hoary sacred cow, water fluoridation, by having to set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for fluoride of zero, under its policy of setting such MCLG’s for all known carcinogens.
So, be on the lookout for the Jackson/Obama/Browner EPA to fiddle with the science on this issue. BTW – I am WAY left of all three of those folks – so don’t count me or the union as being in league with the like of James Inhofe et al.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 amI am a Ford Foundation Recipient, anthropologist, not a climate specialist, but the studies I have read throughout my under and graduate years and since display climatic changes over the eons with or without the hand of man, and oil burning. However, there is little doubt among honest scientists that something is amiss and is not a natural cause of nature. Reality is that there are other unmentioned factors which are far more frightening than burning gases, are along causing climactic alterations and among them may be the destruction of forests, the use of Herbicides/pesticides and garbage disposal.
Unfortunately, there are few voices asking for the end of pesticide use for spraying of adult mosquitoes, which is a useless expenditure, for it kills only 1-7% of flying mosquitoes and is implicated in breast and prostate cancer as well as in Parkinson’s and Alzheimers.
Also unfortunately, the present administration is doing little about the 125% increase in the price of gas since December and less about banning pesticide use for spraying of Adult mosquitoes and cosmetic lawn and garden use,
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 amSo where is the rigorous EPA first principles scientific analysis?
An no, Gavin Schmit’s rebuttal is anything but devastating.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pmCarlin appropriated as his own, without any attribution whatsoever, whole swathes of material from the contrarian World Climate Report, run by disinformation spinmeister Patrick Michaels.
Indeed the central premise, along with at least four key sections, were lifted from that source.
Please see:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/
So, much of Carlin’s analysis comes word for word from a misleading pseudo-scientific attack on the EPA, written by a known purveyor of disinformation with a history of links to fossil fuel interests.
Then Carlin actually tried to get his comments put forward as official NCEE review coments on the Endangerment TSD. And when that didn’t work, he co-operated in the orchestration of a fake “suppression” scandal, timed to inflict maximum political damge on the Administration’s legislative and regulatory initiatives.
Of course, Carlin’s analysis was utterly devoid of substance. But it goes well beyond that. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more contemptible litany of acts of bad faith by an employee of the U.S. government agency entrusted with health and well-being of the population, and indeed the planet.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pmI saw that “suppression” story on the Huffington Post and it was written as a straight up story. I read it and saw that it was some BS. When I went to comment, I was happy to see that other scientists were already all over it. Even before this link with the GOP was revealed it was obvious that this was not real suppression. The GOP is going to get to the place where no scientist will want to go near them.
On a slightly different note. I want to second what Dr. Bagnolo is saying.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pmDeep Climate – Assuming the veracity of the info you posted it amazes me that Carlin has not been fired for dishonesty – I’m guessing the going public with the “cover-up” is saving his butt as any reprimand would only look like a greater attempt to “cover up the truth” – EPA loses either way.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm4 Robert New,
Yes, on both counts. As an example, Fred Singer has been prominent in both campaigns. Whether this is because of “libertarian” beliefs or because of the small matter of consultancy fees, it is hard to tell.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm12/ Doug
Carlin probably thought he could get away with it at the time he went public. And he almost did.
I’m not sure what’s going to happen now, as I think his duplicity is only now sinking in. My discoveries have only been “out there” for a couple of days or so.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 pmWithin the tiny part of the reflexive right blogosphere with pretentions to rationality and academic (if non-scientific) cred (ok, that’s pretty much an oxymoron) that ran with Carlin and Pielke as “evidence” of “Obama’s War on Science” there was also this
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 amTo me, this was the perfect setup job. This is my view:
The guy lifts whole sections of tripe from Patrick Michaels, possibly even on the instructions of Michaels.
He knows full well it is complete junk and will be rejected.
He continues to send e-mails about it to his superior who tells him, finally, to back off.
Now, he can scream “suppression of evidence”!
And, all this is just somehow timed for maximum negative impact and spread by the MSM, who, having already fired all of their somewhat qualified science journalists a long time ago, sucked it all up.
How convenient.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm“…Carlin’s report claims the globe is in a cooling trend. This is an egregious misreading of the last 10 or so years of global temperatures, and is based quite literally on a trick: If you begin with the hottest year on record—1998—then of course it looks like we’ve been cooling since then.”
Uh, okay. So you admit that the earth has cooled over the past ten years. If the models that claim increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to increase and CO2 has increased (I hear it has), but temperatures have declined (or even stayed the same), then logic dictates that the model is clearly wrong. It doesn’t matter what the base year is. But after a decade, please, give it up.
The number of logical fallacies used above is too long to list in total, but include: appeals to authority, emotion, fear, and popularity, ad hominem, guilt by association, ignoring a common cause and confusing cause and effect. It doesn’t appear that clear thinking and the ability to make a logical argument is a requirement for being a “climate scientist”.
Maybe this is why “Global Warming” is never debated in a credible forum that is accessible to the larger population? Or is it that only the priesthood with specialized knowledge can have opinions on such important matters? Those whom question these priests are ignorant deniers!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pmI didn’t even read this whole article, nor the many comments, and here’s why:
First, I’ve only glanced at Carlin’s draft report and believe you are being disingenuous in your characterization of his temperature trend data, which is largely taken from other sources. Figure 1-1 shows “Monthly Global Temerpature Anomolies” over three separate timescales:
(1) Jan 2006 to Oct 2008;
(2) Jan 2001 to Oct 2008; and
(3) Jan 1997 to Oct 2008.
There are other charts offered by Carlin as well including Figure 2-2, which looks at global temperature anomolies back to 1880. Then there’s Figure 2-6 that considers data on CO2 and both surface and satellite data back to 2002. Let me spell it out for you: none, that’s not one, of these several charts start with the year 1998, the year of the great El Nino effect. Talk about cherries…
You might have honestly admitted that the same cherry-picking game may be used by SOME AGW advocates as well, to show a stronger WARMING trend. An example is the orginal call for action against AGW in the 1970s, within a few years of the ending of calls for action due to reputed “global cooling.” You’re telling us they had more than a decade of verifiable data in hand to ascertain with little doubt that CO2, the former hobgobblin of “global cooling,” was now the cause of “global warming?” Really?
You also comment that even if this was a case of a critic being silenced it would not make up for alleged offences against others in past administrations. But, you yourself refer to Hansen as “famous”. If Hansen had truly been muzzled as he CLAIMS, then he would not be nearly as well known, would he? How could Hansen have appeared in what some have reported as more than 2,000 interviews if he had truly been restricted. You do not note, however, the apparent punishment for Carlin by his supervisor — being pushed on to other work and told to spend no more agency time on climate change — something I don’t recall Hansen ever asserting.
Next, if reports I’ve read are correct, Carlin is not just an economist, but also has a degree in physics. It’s my understanding that many climate modelers are physicists. And frankly who really cares if he is not James Hansen, famous-scientist-recently-turned-activist? (I’ve met few hard-core scientists or engineers who would risk their life’s reputation on intentionally walking into a situation for this arrest was very likely or probable.) Most engineers and scientists I’ve met don’t even like dealing with the media because it’s such a different world. Fame can be like a narcotic, and having a non-famous individual raise questions is often more notable than hearing a well-worn record again.
As well, as I recall, Hansen may be both considered or not considered a “climate scientist”. Depends on who you ask. Although he has worked in the field for some years working with surface temperature readings (or fudging the data, depending on who one listens to), and his work modeling the Venusian climate, his academic base is in physics (followed by astronomy). Gee, physics again, same as Carlin…
Further, a main theme for Carlin’s report is that EPA has not even taken time to explain why it does not address the various questions he raises. You didn’t mention that, at least not so far as I bothered to read before being overwhelmed by the number and ferocity of personal attacks. Carlin seems to be saying: “Science evolves.” And science DOES evolve, sometimes rapidly and sometimes not. Carlin also notes that EPA, in a rather remarkable step away from historical precedence, has relied extensively on the work of others. Having once been a contractor for the agency I can readily admit they have to rely on outsiders a lot, but that’s historically been limited to CONTRACTORS, not representatives of other governments who MAY OR MAY NOT have a bias, or who MAY HAVE ulterior motives.
Finally, please get off the ad homs. They make commenters and mainstream submitters appear to have a personal agenda, do not suggest a willingness to respect the opinions of others, and do not appear to meet the “spirit” of this site’s own Terms of Use agreement. (Didn’t your mother ever tell you that if you can’t say something nice about a person to not say anything?)
July 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm#18
First, I’ve only glanced at Carlin’s draft report and believe you are being disingenuous in your characterization of his temperature trend data, which is largely taken from other sources.
The temperature charts were taken from “other sources”, all right – as was Carlin’s analysis of them. This entire section was lifted from Pat Michael’s World Climate Report without any attribution whatsoever.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/
Moreover, the “cooling since 1998″ trope has been debunked literally hundreds of times. If you really need some online references, I’ll dig them out for you. Or follow the links at my blog.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:35 pmGlobal warming is now climate change. The climate does not change. Everyone knows that. So, we must stop the climate from changing, even if it means that the Government exercise total control over every aspect of our lives. We must be taxed for breathing, and for keeping ourselves warm, lest we change the climate for our children. Our children must be monitored, tracked, taxed, cared for by the government, because we are incapable of such caring. China and other emerging nations need not follow our example as they are not as noble, nor can they understand the love our government has for its citizens. Our leaders sacrifice in ways that are unimaginable to those that would emit dangerous carbon dioxide without a care for its destruction to our world. The Obama Administration toils endlessly into the night to save our world so we may live in a fascist police state–a perfect state. I love Nancy Pelosi. She is the embodiment of the love our government has for its children. You can feel the love in every beautiful smile on Pelosi’s face. Obama has the same qualities I would call Christ-like.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:00 am“If you begin with the hottest year on record—1998—then of course it looks like we’ve been cooling since then.”
This is a ridiculous statement to make: if there’s a 10 year cooling trend, then it’s not a single year spike. And one can make the same comment about current climate models – that we’re only seeing a rise in the last 200 years (or whatever it is). That doesn’t make it any less real. To dispute a 10 year cooling trend, you would have to actually dispute it. I haven’t seen the report, but this criticism of yours doesn’t have substance in its current form.
“The Obama administration has taken a stance aligned with mainstream climate science;”
Again, totally irrelevent — mainstream or not, you judge a report based on its data and its analysis, NOT what the current consensus is. Remember, tectonic plates once went against the mainstream interpretation. Same with the big bang.
“Finally, ..if… a few instances of real scientific suppression by the Obama administration [occurred, they]would still not render this administration somehow equivalent to the last [where] abuses of science were systematic…”
Fair enough, but each case of possible oppression of these kinds of reports has to be looked at on a case by case basis.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:13 amI agree with Mark Davis, your “rebuttal’ consists entirely of logical fallacies. Did you think we wouldn’t notice? You’re not as smart as you think you are.
“Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.”
This is factual information supported by unbiased scientists and climatologists. Whether it has been quoted by right-leaning individuals is irrelevant. Your shrill reaction to the truth only serves to underscore the desperation of the warmists as the climate cools.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:32 amPoliticians want to tax us to prevent climate change. What will be next? A tax to prevent a change in the amount of daylight during each day. A tax to maintain gravity. A tax to prevent wind speed from changing.
Come on people, wisen up. Climate has changed for billions of years and will be changing for the next billions of years. It is so complex that we do not yet understand it.
It used to be that if we did not understand something, then it was God’s hand that controlled it. Now, if we don’t understand something, we tax it.
Learn to live with the changing climate of your region and if you don’t like a changing climate, in a few years, you might be able to go and live on the moon. I hear the climate is steady.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:34 amAntoher bottom line — as other web sites has shown, Carlin plagiarized from other blogs without attribution. None of this material is based on published, peer reviewed science. If Carlin wants to argue that EPA should look at the science since the IPCC report, then he should look at the PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC literature — not blogs that have no peer review. If Carlin had done that, he would find articles from a major MIT effort that succests the IPCC underestimated global warming along with literally hundreds of peer reviewed articles suggesting Climate Chnage is a bigger danger than first thought. EPA is a science-based agency and there should be no room for scientific assessments that are not drawn from the scientific literature. One can always find a blog that supports what they want. And, with la nina, 10 years of cooling, after the hottest year on record, is well within the natural variability. After la nina, sadly, the warming trend will reverse.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pmHi,
So we had 10 years of increasing temperatures and 10 years of decreasing temperatures.
I don’t see how you can make a case either way? Warming or Cooling ???
It’s just another Natural cycle with very little to none human interference
July 27th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI think Global Warming will be dead in 5-10 years as we go through another Natural cycle, Only that we’ll pay trillions in Gloal Warming taxes till then(non-refundable ofcourse)
July 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pmS, you should look up the definition of “to think”. just for starters, it is _not_ synonymous with “to assert”.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:22 am