Suppressed EPA Report On Global Warming Now In Public

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has the draft report submitted by the NCEE - the National Center for Environmental Economics, which was squashed by an EPA adminstrator prior to the cap-and-trade bill vote.  The draft report is located here at the CEI site (pdf download).

It begins:

"We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation."

 

The report is even handed, drawing attention to new studies and erroneous conclusions from the IPCC AR4 report, but does not claim to refute global warming.  It simply says new evidence suggest we have made some major mistakes, and should understand those mistakes before agreeing with the premise that catastrophic climate change caused by humans is a fact.

 Emails from Al McGartland, Office Director of the EPA's NCEE, instruct the author of the study not to talk to anyone outside of the EPA, tell him not to spend anymore time on climate change, and tell him the report will not be forwarded.  The internal emails are located here with the memos from the CEI lawyer. 

Why is this important?  Because the conclusions of the study are that the EPA needs to look back over the science of climate change because the IPCC's conclusion is out of date.

• The global temperate has dropped for 11 years, even though CO2 concentration has increased, instead of rising, making a mockery of the IPCC graphs.
• New studies suggest water vapor and solar activity have significant impact (with solar being up to 68% of warming). 
• New studies suggest GHG (greenhouse gases) are not a significant factor in warming that occurred earlier.
• Differences in satellite and surface temperature reading seem likely to be the result of urbanization. 
• The study suggests the EPA should do their own science, rather than rely on an outdated, third party source, so that the EPA doesn't catch flak if this whole thing turns out to be a hoax.

Those are pretty major charges in the accepted consensus, and much of the work has come in the last three years, which means that the IPCC data is out of date (something supported by the lack of rising temperatures predicted by the IPCC).  You should read the report yourself, and draw your own conclusions as to what is says and what it means that the EPA Office Director doesn't want this evidence examined.  The Democrats are always screaming about anti-science Republicans, but use your head and draw your own conclusions.

Who says we should look at the evidence?
Who tells you the matter is settled, and those who disagree are akin to Holocaust deniers?
Who stands to profit if huge taxes and government control are instituted out of fear of global warming?
Who just rushed a bill through Congress that will have no effect on global temperature (by their own admission), but simply represents a symbolic act to let the rest of the world know we're serious?
Which group funds government scientists who support global warming, but attacks viciously anyone who dares to even ask if this is really happening?

Either science is based on science, or it's based on politics and thus has no credence.  The EPA suppressing a report that could have made the difference in four votes in the Waxman Markey bill is proof that climate change politics is more important than actually understanding climate change.

I warned last year that the perversion of scientific studies was going to create a backlash against information we need to progress as a society.  How much money has been wasted on bad global warming studies instead of figuring out ways to improve energy research, clean air and water, and responsibly cut back on fossil fuels without crippling our economy?

As always, as the voice of reason, I simply ask you my readers to look at the evidence.  I don't cite 10 newspapers stating the same byline from the AP and claim it settled. I don't copy and paste talking points from other blogs who write better than I do.  I simply put the evidence in front of you, and ask you to look yourself.

You are being lied to and manipulated by anti-science zealots who will manipulate data, suppress research, and attack opponents until they get what they want.  You've been told that Republicans hate science, but the evidence in front of you tells you that the Democratic Party is the one who twists logic and reason to give them more excuses to pick your wallets and make you beggars.

Look for yourself, and act accordingly.  Remember who voted to enact a massive tax on you during a recession, without bothering to read what they voted on, or the science suggesting the whole effort is a fraud.  And remember this.  The NYTimes, the Washington Post, the Kansas City Star, the Post-Dispatch and ABC, CBS, NBC never thought this was important.  They aren't reporting on this, though the information has been live for a week.  It's almost as if they don't care about the truth, but only reporting what advances Democratic causes.  Could the PD look into this?  Yes.  Will they? We'll see. 

Comments

[Ellen K]

This administration has no intention of rocking the boat by demanding that the Al Gore Church of Global Warming prove their theories with data. There have been many allegations of fudging the data in order to produce politically favored stats. The most egregious example was ignoring an icepack the size of California due to a said satellite malfunction. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that we would have a more manageable resource flow if we didn't have our borders open to illegal immigration. If their really are finite resources, then why are we allowing these people to come in, use them and not pay the price?

[Greg]

Why can't both sides just address this dispassionately? There's a lot of hypocrisy here, you saying in volatile language that "you are being lied to... by anti-science zealots" when that in itself is a lie, told by an anti-science zealot. Likely some internal memo from a nonscientist with a "cost analysis" bent was not given fair hearing, which is certainly a problem. It should be corrected, give him time to assemble the "science" that was "neglected," and by the way to incorporate the science that he himself neglected, and the science that is coming out even now... and adjust the decision accordingly. Probably it will indicate an even stronger urgency to limit CO2 and to do a whole raft of other things to avert environmental damage. --But this "24thstate.com" essay is just pure political tripe. If the author is really concerned about administrative interference in agency science, I hope he or she can trot out the many many blog entries he or she fired off when Bush was doing the same thing, more blatantly, unapologetically, day after day after day. My guess is that this latest incident was the first to break the threshold of awareness.

[Greg]

Come on. Carlin's an ECONOMIST who happens to have a bachelors in physics (see real news story ).

No wonder he was pulled off climate change and put to work on a grants database instead. It was the previous administration that used economists to prove global warming wasn't real because it might cost corporate donors money if it was.

I'm much happier with this administration, which leaves the environmental protection to scientists and the political protection to Congress.

[-Jim Durbin]

Greg,

I notice you fail to address the actual report. Carlin is an economist, but as he points out in that report, the EPA isn't doing its own research. It's relying on work done by a political organization that relies on outdated research.

If you read the report, you'll see Carlin isn't dismissing global warming, he's pointing out that the EPA doesn't know because it doesn't conduct its own research. They rely on outside organizations whose data is not only questioned, but whose predictions are way off.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You attack Carlin, and you attack 24thstate, but you fail to address the central tenet of his work - that new research has changed the equation.

That finding was suppressed by a bureaucrat who claims the process is too far along to take a look at again.

I'm not making it up - it's all there for you to read, if you care to. Or you can just call me a hack, and consider your job done. But that's not very, "sciency," is it?

noob.

[Google top 10]

Typical liberalism. Unreal how much these idiots live one lifestyle yet demand everyone else live a lesser standard.