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?

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.

While you're at it, read Gavin Schmidt's response to the report on RealClimate.

Same old nonsense.

Honestly, how can you tell if the CO2 levels are man-made or natural?  CO2 is CO2.

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.