A look inside the right-wing message machine

Scant evidence for charge that EPA ‘suppressed’ dissent [Updated] 8

UPDATE 6/26: The Competitive Enterprise Institute released a draft of the “suppressed” report, which confirms the EPA’s explanation: The agency didn’t think much of the report because it’s authored by an economist claiming to be a climatologist.

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming,” write authors Al Carlin and John Davidson of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics. They go on to criticize the EPA’s reliance on climate science from the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Surprising absolutely no one, opponents of emissions regulation have pounced on the supposed scandal, saying it’s reason to reject the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Leading bill opponent Joe Barton (R-Texas) mentioned the report during floor debate on Friday and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), at a press conference, called it “a case of the American public denied the right to know this contrary scientific evidence.”

ORIGINAL STORY:

Breakdancer spinning.This is spin.Courtesy katiew via Flickr Wouldn’t it be terrible if the Obama administration turned out to be manipulating science to fit its own ideology? Especially after Obama declared, to much fanfare, that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over”?

Yeah, that would make a helluva story: “Look, the new guy is just like the old guy!”

Well yeah, but it hasn’t happened yet, at least not in the way the Competitive Enterprise Institute claims in a release it sent this morning under the headline “BREAKING: EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study.”

The free-market think tank, which has a history of intellectually hi-larious denialism, says the “Environment (sic) Protection Agency” silenced an internal dissenter in the course of its endangerment finding, a process that concluded in April that greenhouse-gases threaten public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

According to CEI, the dissenter wanted to include “a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position” but was stifled because the report didn’t fit the political conclusion the EPA had already reached. The group published four EPA emails as evidence of political maneuvering within the agency.

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’s personal website, Carlin Economics, reports that he received a B.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in economics and joined the EPA in 1971. It also includes links to his publications, the most recent of which support solar radiation management—a form of geoengineering—and oppose reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If Carlin wanted to comment on the scientific causes of climate change, there’s little in his work experience or education to suggest it’s within his expertise. In an email, his supervisor at the EPA told him to stick to his own work [PDF].

The EPA said Carlin has had plenty of opportunities to present his thoughts—on both science and economics.

“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokesperson Adora Andy.

“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding.  Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar.  The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science.  The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”

But what was it that Carlin wanted to attach to the endangerment ruling? Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s general counsel, told me Carlin’s work cites research showing global warming has been caused by ocean and solar cycles, not by human-caused emissions. Kazman refused to share the document.

“On the question of whether we have a copy of any version of the report—sorry, but at this time all I can say is no comment,” Kazman wrote in an email.

So there’s your nothingburger of a story. The CEI tried to seed this false controversy in hopes that it would grow into a media kerfuffle that would slow down the EPA’s climate work or the energy and climate bill advancing toward a vote in the House this week.

One gullible blogger already took the bait. Any others who make the same error shall have their blogging license suspended for 90 days and their Twittering privileges permanently revoked. It is hereby declared.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. topsymax13 Posted 11:17 am
    25 Jun 2009

    Ouch.  As a social scientist (oh, yes, I am a scientist, regardless of the EPA's or Grist's narrow definition), I am disappointed in the characterization of an economist as a non-scientist.  His scientific expertise is clearly not climate change science, but economists follow the scientific method when conducting research, just like biologists and hydrologists.  Poorly conducted science can happen in any field, from chemistry to anthropology, as can scientists expressing opinions on topics they know little about.  As a side note, it continually surprises and frustrates me to watch social science be ignored regarding climate change, even though climate change is caused by human culture and behavior.

    Permalink

    1. Jonathan Hiskes's avatar

      Jonathan Hiskes Posted 11:30 am
      25 Jun 2009

      Good points. I didn't mean to suggest economists don't employ scientific rigor, only that they're not climatologists. And yes, the climate movement could stand to learn a lot from economics in particular and the social sciences in general.

      Permalink

  2. Thomas Fuller Posted 12:17 pm
    27 Jun 2009

    Dear Mr. Hiskes,I'm glad to see I've been promoted to 'gullible blogger.' Usually your team has more pungent characterisations of my personality, habits and ancestry. Not that 'journalist' tends to get any greater amount of respect, I guess...The two essential points about Dr. Carlin's report are:First, that he was performing due diligence to protect the EPA from liability in the future. Relying on the IPCC AR4 shuts out 70% of the information on the issues under discussion. Such is the rate of scientific progress.Unlike the IPCC, the EPA is liable for the correctness and proportionality of their regulations under the Clean Air Act. What Dr. Carlin was trying to point out was that there is a real risk that future litigation would not go well for the EPA if it were shown in court that considerable relevant research was not considered.Second, that if new legislation limiting the EPA's mandate to regulating CO2 to large emitters does not emerge from a finished bill, this  Endangerment Finding would prove to be a time bomb that would explode in the EPA itself.I spoke with Dr. Carlin (did you?) He's not what you would call a 'denialist' (God, I hate that term and instantly lose respect for anyone who uses it.) He's a physicist who became an economist--kind of a bright guy. In his report, he referenced scientific issues that he maintained have not yet been settled, using peer-reviewed papers to show that the debate was not yet settled. As a physicist, he has a good understanding of the uses and abuses of computer models, but told me that while he found the rest of the science 'accessible' he did not consider himself an expert on climate science.I personally wouldn't characterise the EPA's actions as 'suppressing' his report. It's worse. It's ignoring someone who has spent six years studying climate issues and was trying to help the organisation. He did not release the emails or the report to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He was just trying to do his job.As were you, I imagine. You got your counter-argument up on the web and into the list on Google News. You didn't talk to any of the principals or do what this gullible blogger would naively call 'journalism.' But then I guess that isn't part of your job, is it?

    Permalink

    1. devilish Posted 12:24 pm
      29 Jun 2009

      What a great post and I notice it hasn't elicited a response from the writer of this article.It's amazing to me that those that champion the belief in man-made global warming always shout, "Look at the science!", but when anything contrary is written they completely ignore it and attack the person who dared to write it.  There is no "proof" that our planet's temperature changes amount to anything more than the normal ebb and flow of a 500 million year old climate, correlation is not the same as causation.These type of religious-style zealots used to be relegated to street corners with big placards hanging on their shoulders with messages of the end of the world written upon them.  Now, they're in positions of power evangelizing about global warming and pushing agendas that threaten to strangle production and bring down the standard of living, all for lowering the climate's temperature by .02 degrees by 2100.  How unfortunate.

      Permalink

      1. Jonathan Hiskes's avatar

        Jonathan Hiskes Posted 2:16 pm
        29 Jun 2009

        Cool your jets--here's a response: EPA ‘suppression’ story grows, despite shoddy science in report.
        While you're at it, read Gavin Schmidt's response to the report on RealClimate.

        Permalink

  3. Birthmark Posted 9:51 pm
    29 Jun 2009

    The nonsense that the denialists and delayers put out is laughable. Why anyone believes it...well, I guess that they need to for political reasons, but still...martyrdom?Same old nonsense.

    Permalink

  4. rviohl Posted 11:02 am
    30 Jun 2009

    Had the entire issue of global warming/climate change not become politicized, then supression of a few emails, scant evidence or not, would not even be an issue.  Once an issue becomes politicized, it is difficult to believe anything on the subject.Honestly, how can you tell if the CO2 levels are man-made or natural?  CO2 is CO2.  

    Permalink

  5. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 10:53 am
    04 Jul 2009

    I dunno, I've worked in various state agency air quality programs and know of the turmoil within EPA, so what?  I bashed my management all the time, and only seemed to "win" about 10 percent of the time whenever I confronted them with contrary evidence.  Of course, if you stick with what management says to do you win 90 percent of the time.  How lame.Gosh, the internal fights.  You had to let the lawyers, financial "cost-benefit" wonks, small business, environmental justice, complaince, and everyone lift their leg on the measure.  If some bonehead went to management saying "this would be horrible for small business," we'd change the freaking rule to exempt them.  The way the protocol worked, you had to only addess the specific issue that your team or department had on the matter.  That's just how it worked.So here comes some person who is supposed to only do an economic impact analysis, and starts blowing steam about how the hole idea sucks and is Un-American.  That's hilarious!  Then came THE BIG LEAK where the story was sprayed over the conservative media like a skunk.  Management immediately issues an order for all employees to shut the hell up, and no emails or interviews especially with the media.  Been there, done that!So even if our wayward EPA commenter had some valid criticisms, he was over-ruled and that is that.  Hey, put a hundred EPA teckies and wonks in a room, and a couple are going to pop off on ya and go negative, no doubt.  But those hard feelings don't signify a major division of opinion of EPA or whatever staff.  LOL, I've been in the hot seat many times before, where the Big Manager says "so tell me why I shouldn't fire you right now on the spot."  Another day, another dollar.  I only survived for 10 years before I ran like hell and became a consultant. 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement