« I'M not a chump; can't speak to Josh or TPM staff | socraticgadfly's Blog | Fort Worth PD brutes have no sense of gay history »
Conservatives BS about 'suppressed' EPA global warming report
Via CNET, it's clear that the anti-science wing
of the GOP is going to try to make hay out of an allegedly suppressed report by
career EPA staffer Alan Carlin, cited by Smokey Joe Barton last week on the
House floor during Waxman-Markey debate.
But, look at Carlin's own Googlepages site, and you'll see some political
angles and ax-grinding positions.
Look at my blog for a more detailed analysis on things like cost-benefit analysis, aerosols and more, from Carlin's own words.
Advertisement
yes, the fake controversy is really making the rounds right now.
Here's another link to the debunking of the conservative pundit's fake EPA suppressing global warming report:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/
June 28, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither John Carlin nor John Davidson, the two authors of the draft that never found its way into the published EPA report, are climate scientists but rather economists. I've read their draft, and it regurgitates many of the climate myths that abound on the Internet but have been refuted by data in the climatology and geophysics literature. In contrast, the published EPA report was drafted by a group that include expert climatologists.
This news story came out because of the Waxman-Markey debate, but it is unlikely to have any traction. Rather, I expect it will fade from view quickly.
June 28, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction - Alan Carlin, John Davidson
June 28, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The competitive enterprise institute is the leading manufacturer of lies in the U.S.
This one about the EPA ignoring a report that supposedly debunks global warming is just one of those lies.
June 28, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The report is clearly bunk ... but I still say this was a huge political blunder on the part of the EPA. The emails have some just plain stupid lines in them, this is going to soundbite poorly.
This one in particular is troublesome, both for the impact it pontentially could have and the larger implications about how policy is made in the Obama administration. (And yes, I realize the next sentence in the email mitigates this somewhat ... but it won't make sense to anyone and likely wont be included in any news reports.)
There is no way to dice that other than to acknowledge that the administration already had set it's policy before receiving the recommendation. Further, is seems to clearly indicate that the report's objective is to advance the legal and policy goals of the administration with the finding. When Bush selected a policy and coordinated with the EPA to get results geared to advance his policy and legal objectives, it was considered tampering with science. It just falls into the Obama-as-Bush narrative too easily for the story to go any other direction IMO (and the criticism won't be entirely off base).
Mark my words, the debate is going to be about process, not the lack of merit of the "repressed" report. This is now going to put these Bozo's work on the same level as the scientists who were repressed in the Bush era.
Anyone want to take bets on who the first person to ask: "If the report doesn't prove the policy is bad ... why did they fight so hard to keep it out of the record?"
If this gives the Senators enough cover to sink the legislation - the blame should fall squarely on the Obama administration, not Harry Reid. This could very easily kneecap the democratic leadership if the narrative in the media goes as I imagine ... and it sure as hell won't be their fault.
June 29, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it sounds bad. But I look forward to hearing it come out of the mouths of congressional Republicans. Because once they say it, that's confirmation it's a lie.
June 29, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm ... maybe you are right, those clowns can destroy the credibility of anything. I'm hoping for, maybe, Bachmann to step up and give it a good dose of crazy.
But I'm not sure trying to counter this with a scientific debunking (or attacking the authors) is going to be a completely winning strategy if this grows legs. And I'm not entirely sure what the winning strategy might be.
June 29, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the cited email looks bad, but the CEI chose which emails to cite, and omitted many preceding ones that might have changed the context.
Will this contretemps prove important in the future? Perhaps, but I doubt it, for several reasons. First, all the email exchanges involved economists rather than scientists. Second, the recent political debate, with few exceptions, has entailed statements by both sides claiming that it's important to control carbon emissions but disagreeing about how to do it - i.e., it is increasingly a losing strategy to challenge the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming. Third, the Senate will be considering legislation, and not the EPA endangerment finding.
My guess is that when the Senate takes up this issue, we'll hear a few "global warming is a hoax" rants from Inhofe, but that the only meaningful arguments will center around cost/benefit analysis and not geophysics.
June 29, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the optics of the EPA appear pretty bad, KGB. This could have been handled more smoothly, starting by emphasizing Carlson is an economist and therefore shouldn't be commenting on scientific issues as though he were.
But, back to the basic point... the CBA stuff he's written is a few years old, and he's high enough up the EPA rungs that somebody should have been aware of him sooner.
June 29, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh geez ... now I'm going to have to actually look at the &%^$$ report. Based on characterizations, I thought it was sort of a cost-benefit analysis that was drawing on the shoddier work of legitimate climate scientists to support it's premise, not original first-line climate research. He claims over 2/3 of the citations are peer-reviewed (what *kind* of reviews that research received is another question).
Economists are also scientists who actually do play a valid and significant role in the policy process. I'm not sure it's correct to say that in order to use the results of scientific research in analysis one must be a qualified to have produced the research. If FM's prediction upthread is correct, that the only meaningful arguments will center around cost/benefit analysis and not geophysics, isn't that what economists DO? It seems to a climate scientist cost/benefit should be irrelevant - and certainly not their specialty. If other economists' work was used in producing the finding, I'm not sure attacking him merely for his specialty will cut it (and could cause other economists to assert the validity of their own participation in the process).
This just looks, feels, and smells like a big 'ole bear trap to me. But then the GOP has missed so many golden opportunities recently (usually in favor of stupidity), I'm likely just being paranoid.
June 29, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hear conservatives defending the scientific merits of the report itself, which suggests to me that they aren't considering the issue skeptically.
Seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable for the EPA to suppress such a report if the EPA is not acting with political bias and finds fault with the reasoning of the report. What would be wrong with that?
If conservatives aren't producing convincing evidence of political bias, or evidence that the report is in fact valid, why should we listen to them?
June 29, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink