EPA suppressed report that cautioned against CO2 regulation

[Xiahou]

And I thought politicizing science (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml) was unique to the Bush administration. :dizzy2:


Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-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."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "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 e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

[Louis VI the Fat]

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "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 e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document. Oh for God's sake. :wall:

So only the figureheads have been replaced. More of this 'we provide policy, you provide the science and intelligence we need'.
One bases policy on one's best estimation of reality, not the other way round. :shame:

[rory_20_uk]

Very disappointing news. Regardless of issue how can one judge an issue if we don't have all the information? When such facts are blocked the basis of a democracy is undermined.

~:smoking:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Old habits are hard to break. So, who's getting fired? or promoted...

[Papewaio]

If you guys want a first world triple A economy in 20 years, better get transparency and accountability back on the agenda. Not just Wall Street but the Ivory towers do better with all the facts on the table.

[Strike For The South]

QFT.

Economic, Military, and Social achievements mean nothing if they are not founded on Integrity. One can only hope for the day...

:wall:

America has always been corrupt and decadant at the top. When that stops happening I'll be worried.

Edit: Achivments mean something with or without integrity.

[Lemur]

At the very least, Al McGartland needs to be relieved of his position. No political hack should be indulged in holding back valid scientific reports. And if Al thinks he was acting under orders, we should find out who gave him the orders and sack that person as well.

We had quite enough of this ******** under the previous admin. No reason to put up with it now.

[CountArach]

I decided to look into this a bit more because the results were so at odds with other EPA materials that it seemed strange to me... So here is what I found.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/) has here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/) pointed out some interesting things about the authors and their major sources:

Neither of the two authors are climate scientists... they are economists.
Their main source is a member of Friends of Science (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science) - an anti-climate change lobbying group which has accepted oil money in the past.
Almost all of the science located within the report (A draft of which they link to) is bad. Just bad.
"So in summary, what we have is 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. "

As pointed out here (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/) the Emails reveal nothing at all about scientific manipulation, in fact far from it:

And what do the emails reveal? That there’s nothing to this story. An EPA economist wanted to give scientific opinion, which wasn’t accepted—most likely because it’s outside his area of expertise and training.

The dissenter, Alan Carlin, works as a research analyst in Washington at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), which conducts a variety of economic analysis, including cost-benefit studies, risk assessment, and economic impact modeling. In short, it does number crunching, not scientific research.

Carlin also (http://scentofpine.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/epa-non-coverup/) cited himself several times throughout the report and the EPA press release states that they knew that Carlin's views ran counter to the organisation's and as such:

Considering the numerous previous report iterations and hosted seminars, it is reasonable to conclude those within the agency were already readily familiar with Carlin’s overall thoughts on the subject at hand and that much of the related material had been previously presented and considered. Carlin’s voice was being anything but quashed inside and outside of the agency.
Further:

The references of Carlin’s report are also littered with blog postings, unpublished studies, non peer-reviewed books, and studies published in Energy and Environment, a journal not recognized in the Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) master journal list and that is routinely utilized for study publishing by those skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
But anyway I'm sick of typing now so I'll just leave some further links that I've found... link (http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/), link (http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/), link (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2009/06/29/fake-climate-scandal-of-the-day.aspx), etc.

[Lemur]

Ugh, so this is really a case of non-specialists trying to push their own agenda and getting the smackdown. I retract what I said earlier about Al. He mmay deserve firing, but not for this.

I been duped! Hoodwinked! Bamboozled!

[Louis VI the Fat]

We've been had! :furious3:

Arach for president!


Bloody hell. One needs a Ph.D. in Kremlinology just to plough through American governmental or scientific reports and discover their true meaning.

Oh! The benefits of publicly funded science over science beholden to special interests groups, external financers, hidden financers, Republicans. Props to the new administration for not falling for Carling's games. (unlike me :shame:)

[Beskar]

Why did I suspect Lobby Groups and Oil Money to be involved instantly against Climate Change in America? It is a case of "the usual suspects".

[Crazed Rabbit]

So why, exactly, are the various articles from followers of high priest Gore taken instantly as the truth?

The real climate site has lied before. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/roger-pielke-senior-on-real-climate-claims-bubkes/#more-9022)
From them we have a host of attacks upon Carlin. One of them; that somehow a 38 year veteran of the EPA, who earned a PhD in Economics, is unable to comment on the science being used to push for climate change legislation.

From Thomas Fuller (http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d26-The-politics-if-not-the-science-is-settled-at-the-EPA-Alan-Carlin-global-warming-and-trouble), an interview with the writer of the report:

Carlin's main concern seems to be that the Endangerment Finding (an official declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a danger to public health and welfare) may actually turn out to be a time bomb that may explode in the EPA, echoing the reasoning of our anonymous source as reported earlier today. As I wrote then, the EPA does not want to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air act without legislation limiting their regulation to the largest emitters. If the proposed new cap and trade legislation (which removes EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming gases) is not forthcoming, Carlin worries that it may well be very difficult for the EPA to carry out its mandate. His report was an attempt to have the EPA reconsider the science (which Carlin considers bad science), as despite the respectable trappings that cloak the IPCC and their reports, their hypotheses fail many observational tests in his view.

Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work, but is not at all bitter. He says that from a civil service point of view, his boss 'absolutely has the right' to give him new work assignments. "I still have a phone, I can still talk to people in my office," he says.
...
Later we will discuss the science that Carlin wanted to present to the EPA. For now, he's another whistleblower who actually wanted to help the organisation that shut him out and moved him off the case.

He wasn't writing a report on any new science, but was urging the EPA to look at more recent science, not 4+ year old science, in an effort to safeguard itself against litigation.

More from Thomas Fuller (http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Why-the-EPA-should-have-listened-to-Alan-Carlin)on the amount of science reported on since 2005:

But even if all of these points are eventually settled in favor of the 'Al Gore James Hansen activist' crowd that Carlin called 'warmists,' the other issue he gives for reconsideration outweighs the rest--that the science the EPA relied on for determining the validity of global warming and climate change essentially is limited to what was published before 2005. This is because the EPA is primarily relying on a report from the IPCC called AR4, which reviewed relevant scientific publications and had a cut-off date of 2005 for documents to review.
...
You can play with Scirus yourself and determine the direction of science. For example, the same search for 'global warming' produces 1,597,540 items with the phrase in the title, text or abstract. Of that huge number, a staggering 93% (1,487,510) have been published in the last 5 years. Staying up to date is not going to be easy.

So Alan Carlin's advice to the EPA, that they should consider more recent evidence, is most probably correct. That doesn't mean it would be easy for the EPA to do. But certainly it would be easier than regulating CO2 without the correct information. For the EPA to stonewall Carlin's report--essentially saying that the science was 'settled' as the warmists love to claim (since when did a participant in a debate get to decide when the debate is over?), they must accept that some day they will appear in a court (probably many courts) and will have to explain why they ignored 70% of the available science in reaching their decision.

And then there's this fellow, (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/who-cares-about-integrity-of-process.html) an environmental professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, a member of a progressive (liberal) think tank, who says this is equivalent to Jame Hansen's muzzling by the Bush administration.

1. It is without a doubt that his views were suppressed, in the sense that his superiors did not allow them to be included as part of the formal internal EPA review process.

Another post, including an important bit of EPA regulations, and refuting CA's sources:

Deep Climate, along with Gavin Schmidt and a few of our commenters, seem to think that some combination of the following facts would justify deviating from standard regulatory procedures in a federal agency (and DeepClimate even suggests that Carlin should have been fired long ago by EPA):

1. Alan Carlin is an economist.
2. James Inhofe (R-OK) is reviled among those wanting action on climate change.
3. Carlin's submission is full of nonsense and cribbed marterial from websites written by people with a connection to the fossil fuel industry.
4. FoxNews reported on Inhofe's investigation.

For purposes of discussion, lets posit that all of 1 through 4 are true. Unfortunately for DeepClimate and Gavin Schmidt, they are all irrelevant because in U.S. federal agencies there is no "bogus" clause, no "denier" clause, no "Republican" clause that they can invoke to make arguments they don't like simply go away. Senator Inhofe of course knows this and will exploit the Carlin situation as much as he can, and in the process will give it far, far more attention than it would have received had EPA officials simply decided not to give Carlin's submission special treatment. In fact, I'd argue that it would have never been an issue without the special treatment. Now it can be used to fire up Inhofe's base and keep various dubious arguments in play.

When will folks learn that climate change, as important as it is, does not mean that basic democratic principles and procedures arbitraily get thrown out the door?

https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4535/evidencee.jpg
That fellow quoted above also believes: (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/q-with-tom-fuller.html)

1. Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer.

So I think pretty much all of CA's sources have met their matches, if not been refuted, by the above.

Again, I'm surprised how they were instantly believed. At the end of the day this was suppression, and it was especially wrong for the EPA, which is supposed to consider all evidence, not only the politically correct evidence.

CR

[Lemur]

So I think pretty much all of CA's sources have met their matches, if not been refuted, by the above.
Your sources would carry a lot more weight if they weren't citing "the 'Al Gore James Hansen activist' crowd that Carlin called 'warmists.' " I think they forgot to use the term "libtard" and "sheeple" while they were at it.

I'm sorry, but the sources CA cites just read a whole lot less frothy than the ones you link. Note that I am not staking out a position on climate change, just saying that when someone throws his partisan bias in your face, it's fair to take notice.

I think invoking Al Gore may be the Godwin of climate discussions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm sorry, but the sources CA cites just read a whole lot less frothy than the ones you link. Note that I am not staking out a position on climate change, just saying that when someone throws his partisan bias in your face, it's fair to take notice.


Partisan bias? The guy you quoted is a democrat and also said this (http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Global-warming-for-a-lukewarmer):

I believe global warming is real. I believe we should act to address it. I support President Obama's energy plan and a (hopefully better) cap and trade program. Should I increase the font size on this?

You were awfully quick to dismiss this, Lemur. And your reason is because of the "frothiness" of one sentence of one out of three sources? Two of my three sources believe in man-made global warming and support Obama's energy plan, even if they don't fully support the climate change bill.

And you ignore that one of CA's sources called Carlin a "dissenter", and all of them attacked him more than they addressed his study?

Maybe you just don't want to believe that Obama so quickly politicized the EPA.

CR

[CountArach]

CR, you are ignoring the fact that he is not a climatologist - he has no scientific background in climate science. As such to claim that the EPA is suppressing scientific research is ludicrous because it is not his job. The sources he uses include a combination of non peer-reviewed journals and book, blog posts and of course himself.

[Xiahou]

Ugh, so this is really a case of non-specialists trying to push their own agenda and getting the smackdown. I retract what I said earlier about Al. He mmay deserve firing, but not for this.That might be more believable had the emails (http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf) actually cited a lack of truthiness in the rejection of the report. Instead, the reason given is that it doesn't help the administration's case. If the report was a total piece of garbage and without any merit, why not just say that? Then they did one better by ordering him not to speak to anyone about his report. Why?

That alone should be enough to give one pause when weighing the counter arguments of apologists. I don't know, and frankly can't be bothered to personally investigate the merit of his report. But, considering less than a week was given for internal comment on the EPA's findings, I think it's understandable that they wouldn't be perfectly polished. Still, why dismiss it? Also, I don't believe Carlin is a "denier" in the truest sense of the word.

Edit: From my original CBS News article:

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author: "I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

[Fragony]

s s s surpriseeeeeeee Somebody pick up my jaw

all together repeat after me

consensus, and doubt shall have no dominion, so help us our lobbyists

amen

[Beskar]

Lobbyists are bad.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, you are ignoring the fact that he is not a climatologist - he has no scientific background in climate science.

He's a guy who's got a PhD in economics and a BS in physics - so he's smart. He's also worked for the Environmental Protection Agency for 38 years. It's like calling the CEO of BP "just a geologist".


As such to claim that the EPA is suppressing scientific research is ludicrous because it is not his job.

The claim was that the EPA suppressed a report, not scientific research. I said as much in my post. So this statement is irrelevant, though awfully representative of the sources you linked.


The sources he uses include a combination of non peer-reviewed journals and book, blog posts and of course himself.

Yes, but a majority of it was peer-reviewed scientific reports.

As for his job, Carlin is a Senior Operations Research Analyst at the EPA’s National Center for
Environmental Economics. So his job is to analyze the economics of environmental regulations it would seem. His job would include writing about that.

This report cautioned against a CO2 endangerment finding based on the science the EPA is currently using as a basis for its finding.

Now, the various blogs you linked, all devoted followers of high priest Gore, attacked this guy for not being a climatologist, misrepresented the study, and basically engaged in everything but putting forth a good reason for suppressing his report. They condoned the EPA suppressing a report for political reasons and telling the author to work on some grants database.

This is in violation of EPA guidelines. As for what you're ignoring, I'll quote this bit from the Obama energy plan supporting, liberal think tank member, and environmental professor (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/senator-inhofe-takes-what-is-given.html);


Deep Climate, along with Gavin Schmidt and a few of our commenters, seem to think that some combination of the following facts would justify deviating from standard regulatory procedures in a federal agency (and DeepClimate even suggests that Carlin should have been fired long ago by EPA):

1. Alan Carlin is an economist.
2. James Inhofe (R-OK) is reviled among those wanting action on climate change.
3. Carlin's submission is full of nonsense and cribbed marterial from websites written by people with a connection to the fossil fuel industry.
4. FoxNews reported on Inhofe's investigation.

For purposes of discussion, lets posit that all of 1 through 4 are true. Unfortunately for DeepClimate and Gavin Schmidt, they are all irrelevant because in U.S. federal agencies there is no "bogus" clause, no "denier" clause, no "Republican" clause that they can invoke to make arguments they don't like simply go away. Senator Inhofe of course knows this and will exploit the Carlin situation as much as he can, and in the process will give it far, far more attention than it would have received had EPA officials simply decided not to give Carlin's submission special treatment. In fact, I'd argue that it would have never been an issue without the special treatment. Now it can be used to fire up Inhofe's base and keep various dubious arguments in play.

When will folks learn that climate change, as important as it is, does not mean that basic democratic principles and procedures arbitraily get thrown out the door?

And from what very much seems to be a source in the EPA (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/):

Folks, I work at EPA and am unfortunate enough to actually know exactly what happened. Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal. The claim that he is simply an economist is a deep disservice to Alan and is patently false. Further, the work group refused to consider his arguments because they “don’t know how to weigh them against the IPCC report” – suggesting they won’t be able to evaluate the public comments either. Notably, others at EPA agree with Alan’s analysis which EPA will make public (so they say). If they actually release the report Alan sent forward, and don’t take his extremely critical statements out, it will embarrass the Agency badly. That will be a shame, but it is what the Agency has earned for itself.

I would like to give my name, but I don’t wish to be punished in the same manner as Alan.

This is a deeply sad set of events for EPA and for the nation.
...
Alan was muzzled. Others who tried to get the work group to evaluate his arguments ran into a brick wall. It is not that Alan’s comments were flawed. It is that the people who were in charge wanted him taken out of the process and his report “disappeared”. This was “politics” pure and simple. The arguments were ignored for lack of expertise in climate science.

This is the politicization of science, plain and simple.

CR

[Fragony]

More http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/06/26/epas_game_of_global_warming_hide-and-seek

Everybody should have instinctively have called bull the minute someone introduced the rediculous notion of 'man made global warming'olol

:yes:

Or as a former IPCC scientist put it: the Worst Scientific Scandal in History

More serious scientists comment

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

Glad there are still people willing to draw conclusions based on scientific data.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/321691/e966ad99/klimatosoof_pwnd_global_warming_hoaxers.html

Fast forward to 2:00, it's fun to watch the body language of global warmists when an inquisitive journalist confronts them with scientific data. They are not amused, not at al.

[Husar]

Why does every such topic end up with Lemur and the lefties vs CR and xiahou + the righties despite everybody claiming it's not a partisan issue?! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Lemur]

Welcome to American politics, where everyone is entitled to not only their own opinions, but their own facts as well.

I'd say citing Townhall.com pretty much ends the conversation. (Slightly worse than quoting Daily Kos, slightly better than linking to Stormfront.) However, CR makes some good points. As with all things related to climate change, the positions are so entrenched and the battle-lines so clearly marked, it's very difficult to ascertain where any sort of truth resides.

It's possible this is political suppression of a legitimate report. Never going to argue that the Obama Administration is above that. It's also possible that this is a manufactured controversy. The prominent inclusion of Imhofe raises certainly raises suspicion.

Ah, if I want to figure out what's what I'd probably better do it away from the Backroom.

[Whacker]

He's a guy who's got a PhD in economics and a BS in physics - so he's smart. He's also worked for the Environmental Protection Agency for 38 years. It's like calling the CEO of BP "just a geologist".

My dearest off-his-rocker lagomorph friend. I must unfortunately rip this to shreds.

This is an appeal to an authority which is NOT authoritative on the subject being discussed. Doesn't matter two wits that he's got a PhD and a BS, they are not in the respective field being discussed. While 38 years of service are impressive, it still doesn't mean jack. His opinion is no more valid than yours, mine, or anyone else's here because we are not climatologists with university degrees.

My grandfather was a cook all of his life, never graduated high school (to my knowledge), but good god if he didn't make some of the best fudge, cookies, and sweets I've ever tasted in my life. However, if one were to ask him to describe the chemical reaction that occurs when milk is combined with batter, or what the forces at work that cause yeasts to make bread rise, he'd have looked at you funny and then gone back to cooking. In short, he may have been effective at doing his job and have done it for a long time, had some great teachers in the process, but he had very little to no understanding of the actual science behind it.

The other part of your post that I didn't quote was in regards to him citing peer-reviewed articles. If we assume that what all he cited was true, then anyone could have done what he did. Hell, I could get on wikipedia, consult my brother-in-law's friends who are nuke engineers, Google for an hour or two, then write a well written article on why nuclear energy is dangerous as hell and should be banned from this earth, citing the hell out of a number of scientific studies in the process. It may look impressive, but it doesn't make me remotely qualified to have written such a thing, nor does it make it scientifically valid, because I am not an educated expert on nuclear energy. The CEO of British Petroleum is a corporate executive by trade, not a geologist. Someone at that level has undoubtedly taken time to get that far up the corporate chain, and the higher up one gets generally the more one's "technical" skills suffer or are put on the back burner. If said CEO indeed does have education in geology, then perhaps he could hold a semi-intelligent conversation, but his years of not practicing that trade directly combined with near total focus on running the business would mean he is far less qualified to discuss the matter than one of the actual geologists in the trenches. At one point in my life I could have had a Cisco router up and running, properly configured in a very short amount of time, and I also had a CCNA certification. That was years and years ago, while I can still grind my way somewhat through a config file and discuss network concepts and theory, I couldn't configure said device to save my life.



I should come clean and admit that I am highly skeptical of the whole global warming mess. I think the biggest problem overall is politicians and eco-weenies hijacking the general discussion (in a global ongoing sense), and bending/contorting it to neatly serve their purposes. Suddenly it becomes less and less a matter of studying our planet, it's natural functions, and how humanity is potentially affecting it, and it becomes some kind of crusade complete with mindless fanatics and somehow save the whales gets tossed in the mix. Real science suffers and ends up taking a back seat.

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, CR makes some good points. As with all things related to climate change, the positions are so entrenched and the battle-lines so clearly marked, it's very difficult to ascertain where any sort of truth resides.

I'm quoting democratic Obama supporters here. They're against this not because they are skeptics but because this suppression was wrong.


This is an appeal to an authority which is NOT authoritative on the subject being discussed. Doesn't matter two wits that he's got a PhD and a BS, they are not in the respective field being discussed. While 38 years of service are impressive, it still doesn't mean jack. His opinion is no more valid than yours, mine, or anyone else's here because we are not climatologists with university degrees.


I have to disagree. Let me explain my reference to BP; the CEO graduated with a degree in geology, not business. I see a similarity between the people saying "Oh, but this guy's not a climatologist, so he knows nothing" and those who would say "Oh, but Tony Hayward (BP CEO) got a degree in geology, not business, so he knows nothing about business." I think we agree the latter statement is absurd.

I think a degree doesn't determine what your expertise in, but rather what you work at. And for thirty-eight years this man has worked at the EPA. You mentioned:

The CEO of British Petroleum is a corporate executive by trade, not a geologist.
The BP CEO has only been with BP for 27 years. Now this EPA fellow, by trade, is a analyst of environmental economics. To be dismissed by the followers of Gore as a know-nothing is ridiculous.


I'd say citing Townhall.com pretty much ends the conversation.

What a handy way to dismiss all the statements of scientists quoted in the article.


The prominent inclusion of Imhofe raises certainly raises suspicion.

:rolleyes: Inhofe saw an opening, a weakness in his political opponents and exploited it. It'd be more suspicious if he didn't do anything.

CR

[Husar]

That was a good post Whacker and especially the end is why I'm tired of this whole thing, be it good or bad but when I cannot differentiate friend from foe anymore I tend to say "[insert bad words] and just leave me alone until you have figured this out", meanwhile I support neither group, keep my environmental destruction at an average (or so I claim here :laugh4: ) and notice that the weather isn't as it used to be. :shrug:

[Whacker]

I have to disagree. Let me explain my reference to BP; the CEO graduated with a degree in geology, not business. I see a similarity between the people saying "Oh, but this guy's not a climatologist, so he knows nothing" and those who would say "Oh, but Tony Hayward (BP CEO) got a degree in geology, not business, so he knows nothing about business." I think we agree the latter statement is absurd.

Here's the issue I have with that specific analogy. Running a business is generally not a black and white science, and depends largely, if not mostly, on experience. Certain aspects of running a business like accounting are indeed highly defined and structured concepts, but being able to understand one's business, the competition, customers, and general market is not something that can be taught in a university. It must be learned through direct contact and experience.

I guess part of the point I was trying to argue is that there are indeed some things that can be picked up from on-the-job experience over time. There are however a LOT of things that cannot, and do require formalized education. "High" sciences (my own term) and engineering come to mind.


I think a degree doesn't determine what your expertise in, but rather what you work at.To a certain extent, yes I agree with you. Me walking out of Uni with a BS in Networking Tech means I'm well suited to my current job of IT security/business controls. It doesn't mean that I could transition over time to a new job of being a nuclear engineer running a powerplant, as I completely lack the proper education. I could, however, given time and the proper training and guidance, learn to run the business I work at.


And for thirty-eight years this man has worked at the EPA. You mentioned:
The CEO of British Petroleum is a corporate executive by trade, not a geologist. The BP CEO has only been with BP for 27 years. Now this EPA fellow, by trade, is a analyst of environmental economics. To be dismissed by the followers of Gore as a know-nothing is ridiculous.One thing I should mention is I think Gore is one of the biggest problems facing true climate science, as indicated in my previous post. Also, I would not dismiss the individual we are discussing as a know-nothing, BUT I do not hold him as having the proper credentials for writing an authoritative scientific paper discussing aspects of climatology to be accepted and peer reviewed by the scientific community. If he were to write something on, say, how excessive deforestation of the Amazon river basin has lead to an increase in unemployment, then I would believe him to be authoritative on the subject. I still liken this to a janitor of 50 years working at Fermilab writing up some report based on his long years of listening to scientist coffee break room talk and Wikipedia.

Good discussion, hopefully I am making sense here, please let me know if I'm not (I tend to do this sometimes :clown:)

:balloon2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I guess part of the point I was trying to argue is that there are indeed some things that can be picked up from on-the-job experience over time. There are however a LOT of things that cannot, and do require formalized education. "High" sciences (my own term) and engineering come to mind.

Most engineers have to go through a year or so of on-the-job training for whatever career they first enter from college. That's because most of what they learn has little relevance to the actual job they're doing.

As for degrees and all, I fail to see how the knowledge of a four year degree can only be learned in college and not over three decades at a job. :shrug:

CR

[Whacker]

Most engineers have to go through a year or so of on-the-job training for whatever career they first enter from college. That's because most of what they learn has little relevance to the actual job they're doing.

I would disagree with this logic. It's anecdotal, but my own direct experience as well as that of my friends whom I've discussed this with in the past is that most of the on-the-job training is learning how to work within the company that employs me/us. I came out of college knowing a hell of a lot about IT from a technical perspective. I could manage networks, servers, configure everything from SONET nodes to little Cisco switches, code in 5 different languages, manage databases, you name it. What I did not know and had to gain through experience was how to apply my skills to the job I'd been hired into. The same held true for my engineering friends. They already knew how to design microprocessors, how spacecraft flew, and how different gasses could be separated into discrete quantities through industrial means. What they didn't know was how their relative employers operated.


As for degrees and all, I fail to see how the knowledge of a four year degree can only be learned in college and not over three decades at a job.

This is perhaps more of an academic (har!) argument, but I do believe it is effectively true. There are a number of assumptions to be made, but I cannot deny that the possibility exists. Meh.

[Papewaio]

Standard life cycle of a mine:

Phase one. A geologist finds the ore, runs the mine until production gets up.
Phase two. Now that production is humming along it makes more sense to have an engineer in charge of the site. The geologist reports to the engineer and the geos keep finding more ore while the engineer focuses on more efficiently mining and processing it.
Phase three. Now that the money is trickling in an accountant is often seen as the best choice and is put in charge of the Mine. The engineer now focuses on day to day operations and the accountant focuses on the handling of money. The geologist is layed off as an unnecessary expense as they already have ore.
Phase four. Now that there is no more ore and the mine site cannot be profitably relocated a lawyer is bought in to wind up the mind.

=][=

You will find that most mining engineers and geologists are very professional orientated. And that a lot of the top mining and oil companies have them as CEOs (often with other degrees in Economics).