EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming 1057
theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: '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.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:00 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, under the old boss, he leaned one way, and under the new boss he leans another.
Color me shocked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not necessarily corrupt. The just adjust easily. Perhaps this is why they are called 'servants'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, the guy has worked for the EPA for almost 40 years but because he has an MIT PhD in economics, that makes it ok?
It wasn't ok when it was the other side, and it's not ok now. End of story.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush vs Obama on the subject of 'squashing dissent':
Bush:
1. Omitted DATA for 1000 years and mandated the insertion of qualifying words such as âoepotentiallyâ and âoemayâ that the result would have been to insert âoeuncertainty... where there is essentially none."
2. Demanded that data from a discredited study funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute be included in climate change reports.
3. Demanded that The elimination of the summary statementâ" noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate changeâ"that âoeclimate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.â
On the other hand:
Obama:
1. Despite the fact that Alan Carlin was no part of any group tasked with studying climate control, Obama allowed his unsolicited and unwarranted report to be analyzed and subjected to PEER REVIEW, and was subsequently REJECTED by his PEERS.
Yeah, that's the same exact thing.
The thing that should stand out to anyone is that Carlin claims in this "report": "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
This is complete and utter HORSESHIT.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I REALLY expect more from the /. crowd.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Alan Carlin has no place in any serious discussion about climate change.
Ok then, so what's the solution? He has a point of view you--and presumably the Obama administration--disagrees with. As a 38-year long government employee, should he be fired for his views? After all, if as you say, he has no place in any serious discussion about climate change, why NOT fire him?
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Ph.D. student in engineering at MIT with a substantial background in physics. Does that mean that when I have a fancy MIT Ph.D. on my resume in a few years, my opinion be given as much impact as someone who's studied climatology? I'd hope not.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean that when I have a fancy MIT Ph.D. on my resume in a few years, my opinion be given as much impact as someone who's studied climatology? I'd hope not.
You haven't been around here long, have you? You don't even need a degree in a related field to have your opinion be given as much weight as the consensus positions of the world's scientific academies, climatologists, etc. At least by this crowd.
To the report itself... (Score:5, Informative)
Can you point to *one* paragraph, "new study" or "data revision" in the report that you think is worthwhile debating? - All I can see are the same old arguments [skepticalscience.com] and misinformation put out out by the anti-science lobbyists at CEI and other FF think tanks that have been debunked a million times over. Here are a few specific critisisims...
1. He claims that tempratures have been trending downwards for the past 11yrs - this can be debunked by a simple google search [google.com.au] and is laughable to anyone who has looked at the temprate records.
2. He blathers on about sunspots and cosmic rays - a theory born from a book by a self-agrandising author [physicsworld.com] and completely unsupported in the litrature, debunked in detail by yours trully here [slashdot.org].
3. He complains the last IPCC report is 3 years old and thus out of date. - Fucking nonsense [realclimate.org].
4. He claims that the 1998 temprature spike cannot be explained - maybe it's a mystery to him but yet another simple google search shows it's well known that the 1998 spike was due to El Nino [google.com.au].
I stopped there because my head was about to explode. Suffice to say that after skimming what I was sure would be 98 pages of anti-science drivel I no longer think he should be sacked, I think he should be prosecuted for collusion and conspiricy.
"all the more reason to not rush through it to satisfy political whims of the day!"
I'm sorry to say, and mean no disrespect, this is exacly what the psuedo-skeptical slimeballs at CEI want you to think. They lost the technical debate over a decade ago and have been promoting "debate" as a delay tactic ever since. These are the same people who promoted "tabacco scientists" in the eighties and are still recieving funding from Phillip Morris. They are the scum of the earth and I don't find it the least bit "bizzare" that the "slashdot crowd" are calling bullshit on this particular example of Machevelian politics.
Yes, sack the corrupt prick. (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is that they are not his views they are the views of the CEI lobbyists as seen in email linked in TFS, and that's all they are views not evidence. The role of a civil servant is to speak truth to power not to push the barrow of a special interest group, particularly when that special interest is anti-science FUD. IMHO he should be sacked for incompetence, corruption, or both.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:5, Informative)
Climatologists have already reached a very solid consensus that CO2 emissions *must* be reduced at *any* cost.
That completely misrepresents the opinion of climatologists. The consensus is that CO2 is increasing, that CO2 is highly correlated with historical temperature changes, and that the last century of climate change is caused primarily by humans. There is far less consensus over the exact changes that will occur, that they will all necessarily all be bad, or that we must reduce them at all costs.
Re:He has shown forty years of bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, so it seems what you're basically saying here is, the guy's background is in physics and econonomics--he's not a climate scientist (btw, who is--do you have to have a degree called "climate science" or can other scientists count as well?) and so his writings on anything touching on the climate should just be dismissed (I notice that you haven't touched on any of the merits / lack thereof of anything he's actually written, so I assume this is your point of view)?
Lastly, since he doesn't fit in the "solid consensus," he should just get in line with the consensus.
You'll forgive me, but that doesn't sound like any kind of scientific community / environment that I would want to be associated with or promote, and I seriously hope you would agree. I don't think this has anything to do with what side of the "global warming debate" / whatever you want to call it you fall on.
btw, slightly off-topic, but it seems somewhat noteworthy that others were interested in the EPA's submission process of the IPCC as seen at: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6354 [climateaudit.org]
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems Obama isn't the only one quashing dissenting opinions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Summary. Leading export on Polar Bears excluded from Polar Bear conference because he is a "skeptic" (shudder)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He his just a servant. I would expect things to change with regards to the issue as years go by. Public servants have to adapt to direction changes in management.
Please let me had that I have always had concerns with regards to the way this whole thing is handled.
Of course I admit than man may cause global warming but I find that we sometimes seem to diverge from scientific reasoning when it comes to this matter. It should come back to a more scientific approach as years go by, the concept is pretty new re
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Funny)
Physics degree qualifies you to report on whatever the hell you like as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Informative)
> Why don't we examine the content of his report before disregarding it based on his non-qualifications.
Because people hired to make noise must be disregarded eventually. But since the noise-making apparently succeded enough to get a slashdot post, I can at least link to an examination at
deep climate [deepclimate.org].
Short version: He cut and pasted from various contrarian blogs and astroturf organisations - the ones that are now shouting censorhip - rewriting it slightly to remove too obvious editorialising. The actual content is standard issue denialist fare: misrepresenting papers (and ignoring the protests when the author complains), along with some long discredited talking points (global warming stopped in 1998, and anyway it was the sun and cosmic rays that did it)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Funny)
On target, gandhi. Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century. Either you are a believer, or you are a blasphemer. By definition, a blasphemer is NOT qualified to have an opinion. To make things clear, I am a blasphemer, and I think that Al Gore goes down on little children and baby goats.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever seen an atom? How many scientists have actually reproduced the Rutherford scattering experiment? Well, most scientists have not, so everybody is following the consensus that atoms are built in a certain way. Damn, most people rely on the consensus about the world being round instead of flat—there is not that much space in the ISS.
I work with methanol, and I never ran spectroscopy to ascertain that methanol actually is CH3OH. I never checked out that the gas it reacts into actually is CO2. I never checked out the circuits in the mass-flow controllers to check they are measuring the right flow, and even then I would have to check that Maxwell's laws are actually true.
Everybody, and this goes for scientists too, make a huge number of reasonable assumptions. That's the consensus, and it is a consensus because it works.
Strawman. Who would those be? Einstein changed the view more than any other, and the only reason certain people frowned upon him was unrelated to his science—he was a Jew. Galileo was surely frowned upon, but certainly not by scientists; and what about the discovery of DNA, the proof of Poincaré's conjecture, nuclear physics—were all those scientists doing ground-breaking work being "frowned upon"?
In fact, making bold new claims is all there is to a scientist's life. You need to publish new stuff, which needs to pass anonymous peer review. It's not just a formality, and when I was called for some reviews I have actually sunk a couple of papers which made fundamental mistakes. The problem you have is, you cannot just make absurd claims without any proof on the only basis of faith or personal political bias.
... and that is misleading, bordering on falsehood. It has never happened this fast [grist.org] in nature, which leaves human activity as the most likely cause. If you make this kind of extraordinary claims you should follow it up with extraordinary proof.
Oh my god, gas-guzzling climate-change deniers have interbred with the evolution-denying fundies! Let's hope they do not meet the flat-earthers too...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to believe that it is impossible to burn THIS much fuel and have no effect on a balanced system. I pretty much believe Climate Change(tm) is possible.
My problem is that some of this has become the flat-earth dogma that science is supposed to rise above.
My wife is a wildlife biologist. Has a degree in Zoology and Conservation Ecology. Working on her masters. Her office consists of wildlife tech's working their way thru the "tree-hugger circuit" as I call it: taking several years worth of seasonal wildlife technician jobs before finding a permanent one. So I've hung out with, rock climbed with, had BBQ's with many more "hackysack-playing, bluegrass-listening, quickdry-and-plaid-wearing 20-something's" with ecological bachelors and masters degrees than you are ever likely to meet.
So take me as something of an educated witness that an ecological degree caries with it a certain indoctrinated mindset about things. A sort of "don't question global warming" mentality. I thought science questioned everything.
Broad brush? Unfairly stereo-typing? Mostly true? Yep. I put more faith behind the physics degree in explaining physical natural phenomena.
Alan Carlin was modded "-1, Troll" (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think it ironic to mention this in Slashdot, of all places, where questioning something will quickly send you to -1 oblivion, while going along with the herd mentality will raise you to +5 nirvana?
Science questions everything, yes, as long as those are pertinent questions. S
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Funny)
To summarize your post:
1. I'm a reasonable person. I think massive increases in the earth's Methane/CO2 levels are probably-to-possibly going to induce massive changes in the biosphere, thus placing large numbers of human beings (including myself and my offspring) in harm's way.
2. But here's a personal anecdote about some crunchy tree-huggers I hung out with.
Ergo,
3. On balance, I think it would be valuable to take an unsubstantiated swipe at the scientists who are qualified to researching this incredibly complicated subject. And even though I haven't read his report, I place more faith in this guy's undergrad BS degree than in real scientists in the area.
If you really want to stand by this guy's BS in physics, I urge you to read this [slashdot.org] comment --- from someone who actually read his report (or better, read the report). Post back to me if you still think the guy is making a strong, scientific argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Al Gore have a degree in?
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Interesting)
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
Shoot the messenger. (Score:3, Informative)
The only problem I have with a government department quashing a psuedo-skeptical report is if they do it in secret, I don't know if this is the case since i haven't RTFA. If this guys opinion is different to ever
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Economists are the Rheumatologists of the the math world. If you want to diagnose some strange condition, that every other Dr tells you is all in your head, and no one is able to diagnose, you go to a Rheumatologist.
The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't disagree more. The reason economists are useful in analyzing global warming is that they understand economics. They actually have half a clue what will happen to the economy if we impose massive regulations on it.
PJ O'Rourke was writing about his experiences in a number of countries with major famines. He observed that there was always plenty of food around but that the thugs in charge didn't allow it to get to starving people. Nature, in a nutshell, doesn't cause famines, people do.
So if the science is settled, fine, but also realize that it's a historical fact that we could easily kill more of ourselves than global warming if we screw up the solution. So we need a debate about the economics and we need proper economists to weigh in.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Money" is an abstract value for the actual costs are in terms of labor, materials, etc. Economics often involves money, but it doesn't have to. Similarly, astronomy isn't necessarily about optical telescopes.
In terms of the environment, we have a limited amount of CO2 and other forms of pollution that we can put into the atmosphere without causing large amounts of harm. Figuring out the optimal point for CO2 output versus the level of harm is valid area of economic study. Money could play a part here, but it doesn't have to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call paskahousut.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
[flame thrower on]An ecology degree or a degree in meteorology is what you you get when you can't do the math for your physics.[flame thrower off]
The problem with current AGW theory is that the data doesn't always match the theory as well as would be expected. Generally for people traine
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Interesting)
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but no other branch of science is working within governments to literally tax every person on the planet under the guise of helping mother earth. But climatologists are so yes they get more scrutiny.
It doesn't make people feel warm and fuzzy when the guy that is supposed to be detached has become a "believer".
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy had a physics degree, and an economics degree. Neither which fully qualifies him to report on Global Warming.
What does, in your opinion?
The problem with "climate science" is that it really does require a broad application of disciplines - suggesting that someone with a degree in physics in not a scientist, or not qualified to report on GW is absurd. As for economics, this is an even more important discipline when it comes to determining what action, if any, should be taken (eg, cost benefit analysis of various approaches, etc).
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: Carlin is a 60 year-old fart who has done no significant research in his entire career and has a political viewpoint that is coloring what little work he has done.
Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0 (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that Mr. Carlin isn't an academic? I know plenty of engineers, doctors, lawyers who don't publish in academic journals. Do you know why that is? Because they are active practitioners doing the jobs they have trained to do. Mr. Carlin's report was not new science. New research isn't even the EPA's role. His report was a summary of papers counter to the holy scripture put forth by the political hacks running the show, political hacks in an agency that isn't supposed to be political. In fact he cites court cases that specifically state the EPA is supposed to be providing information on all of the positions around an issue. Not just the positions that support the executive branch's agenda.
So, how about, instead of the piss poor ad hominem hatchet job on this guy -- who is doing the job he is supposed to be doing -- why don't you explain why the EPA is failing to do its duty?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or bribery, graft, patronage, embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and kickbacks. Clearly government is about much more than simple politics.
Re:The sole purpose of government is politics. (Score:5, Informative)
I find it interesting that mentioning Obama's middle name is considered "taboo". Now, why is that? Hmmmm???
It's not a taboo, it's just doing that makes you look stupid. After all, people don't usually write "George Walker Bush" or "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" in full, either. Same goes for Obama - only context when his middle name is spelt out is generally when someone is trying to hint at his "un-American" ancestry.
I wonder.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop giving them power (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop giving them power to take your money and make your choices for you. Then you don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
If I tried to take that power away by any means, I think we know what the result would be. Individuals cannot make such a change, masses must and masses will not likely do that until things are extremely bad.
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:4, Informative)
The point still stands though. There's a lot of people who just don't understand the value of limited government. This is a huge piece of the value: What if they're all stupid and evil in the government? If they don't have any power, it really doesn't matter.
Once you give them power, you better be certain they're all infallible. If you can't be certain of that, then don't give them power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the government decides to give benefits for being married, it is up to the government to define what they accept as "proof of marriage". So either you have a religious ceremony with no legal implications at all, then who are you to forbid other people to have a similar ceremony with a similar name? Or you have something which has legal implications, then it has to be fair and open to all to qualify.
Re:Stop giving them power (Score:5, Insightful)
If you treat them differently because you disagree, be prepared to be fined or arrested (or at least sued) for discriminating.
Yes, their freedom to marry is more important than your freedom to discriminate.
The FBI uses due process to find out what someone has been reading and that means there's no free speech? I disagree. Courts and prosecutors can subpoena your diary, for god's sake.
The FBI just sends a letter and there's no appeal, you have to comply. There is no due process, the FBI never had to get judicial approval. A subpoena has to be issued by a judge.
Hope and Change? (Score:4, Funny)
They told me if I voted for McCain that science would be subservient to policy goals. And they were right!
Thx Instapundit.
Old adage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old adage (Score:5, Funny)
Be fair. No real scientist would be seen dead with a degree in economics. It makes it impossible to write grant proposals with a straight face.
The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a little science sprinkled over a lot of save the world machoism is all there is to global warming.
Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:5, Insightful)
And there's really no question whether it's happening or what's causing it. And it means serious Malthusian shit for a lot of people.
This is the problem with the way we handle public discourse on environmental issues. We'll focus on one aspect to the exclusion of the dozen other ways we're fucking ourselves.
Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fairly neutral on global climate *. I think both sides are entirely too biased, and reason is not prevailing.
Sure, pollution in the environment is bad. No shit.
Putting tons of hybrid cars on the ground (with the included extra huge batteries and short life spans such batteries dictate) is not the answer. Cows that burp less (WTF?) is not the answer.
I think the anti-environment group is being too extreme - nobody wants to live in 19th century London, ok? Everything covered in soot, the water toxic, etc. This is bad.
On the other hand, the pro-environment groups are just as bad. Sorry guys, but if you expend more coal-driven energy on being green than you would otherwise, you're just hurting yourself.
Rationality on the eco topics is as rare as on the sexuality topics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting tons of hybrid cars on the ground (with the included extra huge batteries and short life spans such batteries dictate) is not the answer. Cows that burp less (WTF?) is not the answer.
True. The real solution is to have less cars on the road in general and to raise fewer cows.
Reduce,Reuse,Recycle... In that order. Global warming or not, reduction of everything that polutes and/or excessively consumes resources should be the goal.
Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too! (Score:5, Insightful)
What irks me about the climate-change-CO2-fear-mongers is that we are forgetting about very real pollutants that are causing problems today. Just look at the current levels of mercury in the oceans. It has gotten to the point where it's not safe to eat many types of fish because the mercury content is so high. Sure, the global warming may be real and we might so happen to stop the planet from heating up, but then what? At that point other pollutants will have killed off all of our food sources.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let's see. A higher average temperature means longer, warmer summers over more of the world, leading to longer growing seasons, bigger harvests and a larger food supply. A lower temperature leads to shorter growing seasons, smaller harvests, less food and, in extreme cases, crop failures. Granted, the one-twentieth of one degree that you refer to is probably not enough to make a difference, but I think the basic principle is
Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action. And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already."
The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community. Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
must side on the consensus of the scientific community
If you keep silencing dissenting scientific opinions, is it a true consensus?
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Informative)
The guy is a 38 year veteran of the EPA. That refutes your ignorant statement.
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument that technology evolves is a red herring, and is irrelevant to the original point. Also, you never answered my question: In principle, what evidence would convince you that global warming is real, anthropogenic, and dangerous?
You'll need to support that with evidence, because from where I'm sitting, the places in the world with well-regulated market economies (Western Europe, Australia, Europe, Japan) are among the best places on earth to live, and measure better on virtually every quality-of-life index than less-regulated places like China and the United States. I wouldn't quite call that "ruin".
I don't see how this "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" factor applies in this situation. The cap-and-trade system of limiting carbon emissions is a system that works. I don't see what more-expedient-but-still-good solution is being held back by it.
Also, government funding doesn't "trap us" into looking for perfect solutions while ignoring good ones. You'll have to back that up with evidence.
First of all, I agree with this statement. A free and efficient market is mankind's best method for allocating resources.
The source of my disagreement with you lies in your implicit assumption that the market we have today is free and efficient. It is not, because it does not take into account the embedded costs of pollution in goods we produce. The whole point of the cap-and-trade system is to force the market to take into account these external costs and thereby become an even better allocator of resources.
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The article said it listed recent research papers whose findings contradicted the draft EPA report he was reviewing. So in other words, it collected and summarized information.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, you've got to like having a government salary and benefits. The guy's longevity at the agency says nothing of his competence as a scientist. His lack of a PhD in atmospheric science also says nothing. The fact is that we have no reason to assume this guy is qualified. So the best thing to do is to read his paper. Which, by the way, makes him look like a loon.
Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Informative)
If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do. Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth. I don't really understand his position. In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions." He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.
Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.
I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:
These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Informative)
Mentioning Christy Spencer McIntyre and Pielke as if they had a clue demonstrates just how stupid you are. Christy and Spencer have stated repeatedly in the scientific literature that they their analysis of radiosonde data agrees CLOSELY WITH THOSE OF OTHER SCIENTISTS AND WITH THE IPCC report. In a Vermont law suite filed by auto dealers to prevent further tightening of emission standards the Judge noted that Christy UNDER OATH ADMITS that Jim Hansen is correct. Christy is one of the authors of NOAA's Climate Change Science Program report that clearly states that global warming is real and man-made. Yet, he is more than happy to take money from the ExxonMobil funded Heartland institute and say global warming doesn't exist
McIntyre cann't even use someone elses data and programs correctly. He tried to replicate Mann's hockey stick, but made so many mistakes that the National Research Council had to publish it's own analysis that demonstrated McIntyres errors and reaffirmed Mann's work. ten other independent groups have been able to duplicate Mann's work and show that Mann was too conservative in his findings. McIntyre's been pissed ever since
These fools don't address any underlying science they merely spread FUD for money
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim. And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.
First, have a look at the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png [wikipedia.org]
"Global temperature" is a meaningless term in any case, but so long as measures are consistent (they aren't--the thermometer coverage in Asia dropped precipitately after the fall of the Soviet Union) the trend should have something vaguely to do with atmospheric heat content. On that basis, there was a large increase in atmospheric heat content from around 1900 to about 1940, then nothing much for the next forty years, then a sudden jump between 1980 and 2000. It's too soon to tell yet, and I've not run a statistical analysis myself (although one is trivial to do) but you'd have to be insane not to notice that the past decade looks a lot like noise.
Furthermore, the climate modelling community are now predicting "the possibility" of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade, making AGW an untestable hypothesis, globally. If temperatures go up: it proves we have global warming! If temperatures go down: it proves nothing because global warming can cause that too!
So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates: what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring? If you can't name any, then your belief is not science but faith. We'll argue about priors strength and whatnot after you've adduced the facts that you would count as evidence.
Secondly, with a B.Sc. in physics from Caltech he is one of the smartest people you could possibly imagine, with a better grounding in physics--and remember, climate science is nothing but a special category of physics, so anyone with a decent physics degree is qualified to do climate science--than many people with Ph.D.'s in the subject. I was a post-doc at Caltech, coming from a top-tier university, and felt myself in good company with the grad students, post-docs and profs there. The undergrads were like they belonged to a different species: focused, intelligent and intense beyond belief.
And I should also point out: no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics. As a computational physicist who has had a look at GCM's, I'm appalled by what I find there. Good science, certainly, but nothing like what I would want public policy based on.
I think there are good reasons to try to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, and as a believer in free markets I am in general an advocate of cap and trade as a sustainable mechanism for imposing property rights and limiting dumping in the atmospheric commons. But as a scientist I think there are far more open questions on AGW than settled ones, and the public debate as pretty much abandoned any pretence of science, with each side arguing its own religion with no reference to any facts that would reasonably bear on the issue.
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it just looks like a brief downward excursion in a larger chaotic trend. We see exactly the same behavior in another chaotic system, the stock marker: even in a a bull market (good times), one finds downward trends.
Changes in temperature on this scale are exactly what you would expect to find, actually, in the context of an overall, long-term warming trend [cabq.gov].
Re:Did anybody read his paper? (Score:5, Informative)
Can you give me a hard problem? Something at least partially challenging? You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this. There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change, until the change is complete. The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.
Since the world's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting, we have a phase change. None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.
BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING!!!
You are confusing temperature with heat. The two are NOT the same! The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.
In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed, an enormous amount of heat is involved, but without any corresponding rise in temperature. This is very basic stuff.
Ok, so what about the fall in temperature? What about it? Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material, including a specific mix of gasses. As water evaporation increases, you are altering the composition of the atmosphere. Ergo, an absolute temperature means bugger all. You must calculate the heat present (based on the gasses/vapour) and then talk about the change in heat.
This is really basic stuff and I shouldn't have to be telling you this. You learned it in school and the laws of physics haven't changed since. Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics, so don't think that believers or skeptics could do so.
And as I've said before, the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock. Since he believes that Global Warming is real, man-made and far too advanced to be stopped (merely limited in impact), and as he's been entirely correct on all prior predictions, his conclusion is the one I will be going with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject
Excuse me? As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
Please provide links to the data of this mysterious "everyone else" you refer to that contradict the published UAH and RSS data.
Otherwise, I think we have a completely new record of asshattery from our coward here: The Appeal to Authority fallacy without any actual authority. Awesome!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of,
As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
their "best fit" (the violet line).
OK my friend, if your trend line from January 2002 to May 2009 is not a decline of 0.26 degrees per decade like their violet line, what is it then and how did you arrive at it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, my friend. Consider the trendline from June of 2008 to January of 2009: if anything, global temperatures are plunging. At this rate, even the tropics will freeze in a few years. AGW is a farce: we have global cooling to worry about!
</snark>
The OP's point is that the graph's trendline is meaningless in context.
(Curve-fitting is p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't predict the weather over the next ten days, but I have a pretty good idea of what it'll be like over the next ten months. If you're trotting out this argument, you have no idea what a "chaotic system", and have no business commenting on climate science.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My point is that the creator of the OP's graph cherry-picked a period during which temperatures happened to decline, and that it's no different from my doing the same thing with a different cherry-picked period. If you look at recorded temperatures and ice-core results, you'll find that the runup since the beginning of the industrial revolution is like nothing we've been since the Eocene Thermal Maximum [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have two conditions: 1) show me a correlation between solar activity and temperature that's stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperature [greenoptions.com], and 2) propose a plausible theory of why past temperature correlates so closely with CO2 excursions, but why this CO2 excursion won't in turn cause a large temperature excursion. That is, show me that CO2 doesn't have a causal relationship to temperature, or that
They said he's not a climate scientist (Score:5, Informative)
They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks! Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait. What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.
He's a...race car driver? No, that's not it either.
Let me think.
I know! He's an economist.
So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.
--MarkusQ
P.S. From what I can gather, the "suppressed opinion" was just that--an opinion. It isn't like the guy had gone out and done any original research.
Re:They said he's not a climate scientist (Score:5, Informative)
They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks! Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait. What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.
He's a...race car driver? No, that's not it either.
Let me think.
I know! He's an economist.
So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.
--MarkusQ
P.S. From what I can gather, the "suppressed opinion" was just that--an opinion. It isn't like the guy had gone out and done any original research.
Exactly. Please check his publication record,not even one single scientific paper on climate change on a career spanning over 38 years as... an economist.What a surprise!
I dunno... (Score:4, Interesting)
This man has been working for the EPA since 1971. [googlepages.com] Hell, he helped BUILD the place.
So what if he's "just an economist"? According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive. Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you. Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?
It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service. Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.
I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
Re:I dunno... (Score:4, Insightful)
He has been working for the EPA as an economist. Not a climatologist.
His prior publications are in law and economics journals. Not science journals.
He is no doubt very qualified to asses the economic impact of EPA actions.
Not so much the veracity of various competing scientific theories of climate change.
Irony and Science (Score:5, Informative)
Unbelievably, despite the fact that I am working on a deliverable for this coming week, I took the time to a) RTFM on CNET, and b) download the PDF of the author's report.
I read through the table of contents, and thought it was worth scanning through portions of the document.
Ironic Item One
In the executive summary, the author chides the EPA as an organization for relying on decades of work by the IPCC, and thousands of person-hours involved in climate science that were brought to bear on the IPCC reports over the last several years. The author points out that the IPCC reports did not include the most recent findings regarding, among several phenomena, solar sunspot cycles, cosmic rays, and the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. The author supports his contention that sunspot cycles and cosmic rays affect Earth's climate by citing one or two, non-peer-reviewed postings to web sites.
Interestingly the most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; b) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; c) Greenland's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip.
Ironic, and damaging, Item Two
Scanning through the report, the reader comes to page 64 of the report, 79 of the PDF, and finds this heading:
The author then goes on to point out how the following aspects of life in the US have improved over the last century or so, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.
Re:Biased? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, the GP points out flaws in the paper that anybody can see. You don't need to be a climatologist to see that there is no causal link between lifespan, crop yield and global warming despite a correlative link.
Same on both sides of the fence (Score:4, Insightful)
This just serves to remind us, 'liberal' and 'conservative' alike, that political maneuvering and groupthink look pretty much exactly the same and have the same consequences, regardless on which side of the ideological fence it occurs.
Groupthink is groupthink, and it's ALWAYS bad.
That's why, as a liberal, I preferred Dennis Kucinich and am wary of Obama; Obama is far too good at mixing up the Kool-Aid and fomenting groupthink. Kucinich is a plain talker, and it apparently makes him unpopular for saying things that rattle people's delusions and make them uncomfortable. Obama NEVER does that. He's a playa.
File Host (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this. The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute [sourcewatch.org]
They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.
However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it. It's politics. Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.
Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not. They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from. Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.
Re:And we want the gov to run health care? (Score:5, Insightful)
True... only you have alternatives to the corporate doctor, when the state takes full control, your options get pretty thin pretty fast.
Not really, because for the vast majority of americans it isn't the corporate doctor making the decision, but the corporate insurance agency bureaucrat who has a vested interest in not doing anything for you. With the government at least they have the ostensible purpose of administering your good health and outrageously bad decisions reflect on politicians concerned about being reelected. Outrageous decisions from the insurance companies result in them giving someone a promotion and bad press that comes to nothing because politicians care more about lobbying bucks than constituents.
I'm quite skeptical that the US government can create and run a reasonable socialized healthcare system, but I don't see any better alternatives. What we have now isn't working. We pay more than other countries for much less and it is one of the major factors destabilizing our economy. Half of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical problems. 75% of those were people who had health insurance that found a way to not ay or underpay to such a degree that the individual could not afford treatment. I've been through the system. I had some of the best healthcare available to the middle class when I became ill. I still ended up paying over $20K out of pocket to get treated which would have driven the majority of people (without my paranoiacly large amount of savings) into complete poverty. I can't even imagine how many people who are too poor for personal bankruptcy to make sense are driven into poverty by our broken healthcare system.
Medicine is one of those fields along with firefighting, law enforcement, and military defense where capitalism is a very poor fit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Medicine is one of those fields along with firefighting, law enforcement, and military defense whee capitalism is a very poor fit.
This may be true, but Government control of medicine is actually worse. I live in Britain, where we have socialised healthcare in the form of the NHS. I pay for the NHS with a big chunk of tax money; all Brits are forced to do likewise, no choice, no opt-out. Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is
Re:And we want the gov to run health care? (Score:5, Informative)
This may be true, but Government control of medicine is actually worse. I live in Britain...
Congratulations, you live with one of the worst implemented of socialized medicine.
Still, many of us choose to buy private health insurance as well, paying twice simply because the quality of NHS care is so poor. It is poor because it is inefficient, and it is inefficient because it is run by a Government monopoly staffed by more bureaucrats than doctors.
I'm sure it's terrible, but statistically, you still pay less than the average US citizen with much, much better results. It may seem bad to you over there, but the grass is definitely browner over here. The rates of people going blind from preventable causes, is absurdly higher here, for example. The correlation between wealth and lifespan is much more drastic. The overall lifespan is shorter.
. An American may lose his house to pay for an operation, but at least he gets the operation...
Fewer and fewer have houses to lose, in no small part because of health care costs and trying to get a loan so you can get medical treatment is not going to happen. It's a bad bet. I have a friend who is naturally skinny and tall. He can't get insurance at all because he is clinically underweight. I know a girl who is short. Clinically overweight, no insurance for her. Most doctors won't even treat them even if they have cash. They don't go to the hospital when they get very ill, because they simply can't afford it. One had something stuck in their eye, but decided to wait it out and hope they would not lose vision in that eye, because the alternative was losing everything she owned. The other spent a week in massive pain because of a serious infection of the inner ear. Again, no option other than begging people he knew with money in the hopes someone would help. You assert that Americans get the operation but a huge number of us certainly don't. In the UK they prioritize by severity of condition but here if you don't have the money you just suffer in pain or even die. I have other friends stuck in jobs that provide health insurance. The job is terrible but they can't ever quit because it's the only way they can get healthcare. Oh, and what about me. I'm physically fit, not too old and have no serious medical conditions. I will never, ever be able to buy medical insurance again because I had an inexplicable illness once and they never figured out what it was, so I'm a poor investment for insurance companies too.
Sorry, but the US has every other first world nation pretty well beat for worst health care and there are plenty of numbers to back that up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is one bit of denialist propaganda that gets repeated over and over. Only there's one huge problem with it -- the satellites temperature measurements correlate very closely with the ground temperature measurements. (Compare the blue with black and red lines here [wikipedia.org]). I suppose the satellites are misbehaving in exactly the same way too?
in other words, the usual excuses (Score:3, Informative)
The alleged danger that cigarettes pose will never be known with acceptable certainty, and anyone who says anything one way or the other doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
Same hand waving, same excuses.
We'll never really know for 100% certainty.
Nothing is "100% certain" in science, not even gravity. But for practical purposes, yes you can be sure that climate change is happening, and humans have been the driving cause. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RAND is actually rather non-partisan, and does serious work on climate change policy, e.g. here [rand.org], here [rand.org], here [rand.org], here [rand.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he were the lead guitarist in a rock band, that also wouldn't make him automatically wrong. What's your point?
almost (Score:3, Insightful)