Even the mainstream press has had to carry the unhappy news of out and out corruption inside the EPA:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml

Here's the so called controversial based thing from the EPA

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

as noted, it contains such biased evidence interpreted by sites like wattsup and icecap. It also contains wrong assumptions which experts in the field, which he is not, dispute.

This is hardly what you would call peer reviewed. This guy, Alan Carlin is in his 60's considering his RAND papers. It will probably be circulated around especially in the denier blogs and I'm sure he will be paid and paraded around.

Are there people who don't believe in AGW in the EPA? Yes but so what? I can name at least one racist nobel prize winning physicist who believed in eugenics. Doesn't mean they are right. There were lots of assumptions and errors in that report that he wrote and that the deniers are taking as a sign of conspiracy.

It was a very slanted so called story, especially if one reads the source of the controversy and realize what an undistiguished work it really was.

"This guy, Alan Carlin is in his 60's considering his RAND papers. It will probably be circulated around especially in the denier blogs and I'm sure he will be paid and paraded around."

To say the man and his work, though in draft form, is undistinguished is more ad hom than anything else:

B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present

And Carlin is squarely in the AGW camp. Read his paper on Geoengineering... What he says in his comments on the Draft TSD is simply that there may be a better way. A more economical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - he is a Ph.D in enviro-economics.

Ad homs will not work on this man. He is a good scientist whose work does not conform to the party line. The internal emails released to the press show that he was muzzled by his boss. Apparently his boss was muzzled and told to shut down any negative comments. This is not science. It is not politics. It is plain and simple corruption.

This revelation will haunt Obama's Administration until it is made totally transparent - and even then he will have to answer for an EPA that has not followed his mandate for an era of open transparency.

It could be Mr. Obama's Watergate.

It isn't an ad hom attack when the draft cites known biased material from a blog of all things. Blogs are not citatable at all and are certainly not peer reviewed especially when run like the one's in the paper. They aren't run by anyone seriously studying climate. They have never released anything into peer review.

And I do think that in next year's so called International Conference on Climate Change (for skeptics), he and the other author will be courted to be there just like Ferenc Miskolczi was after he torpedoed his career with his own discredited work which was used in this paper.

Be serious. If the opposite situation was on the other foot, it wouldn't and couldn't be taken seriously. Imagine a pro AGW stance in an administration that wasn't friendly for it, using Joe Blow's blog as a citation and source.

Frankly, i don't care if someones work doesn't conform to the party line. This work is garbage. Science is a meritocracy, not egalitarian. The ideas that survive close examination survive. His do not and did not in this case. He should have been more carefull. He should have went to realclimate.org. At least that site is run by scientists publishing in the field.

Thank's for the link by the way scatter. It highlighted some of the problems I saw with the paper right off, when i looked at it and that realclimate article put others problems with it into focus.

A paper based on non-peer reviewed data is basically flawed and rejected on that basis. It isn't news. It certainly isn't some repression. It is about merit and the paper clearly lacked it as does your arguements.

By the way, the majority of scientists don't agree with your flawed ideas of CO2. It is sophistry and manipulation of the facts and pure propaganda from the competitiveness enterprise institute, which your regurgitate at will. Name an internationally recognized scientific organization that supports your view.

EPA's response.

“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.”

Open transparency doesn't mean that personally held views get special treatment. What it means you get the ability to voice them and have them evaluated. They were and suitably dismissed for their lack of merit.

It was close but yes it was a good thing. And yes sorry for being off topic. Without bringing standards and a way to punish environmental freeloading, the environment would continue to be abused and/or progress to be retarded. Is this thing finished. Still has to get through the senate. Let's hope it does. So get your senators on line with it.

sulleny:

It could be Mr. Obama's Watergate.

ROFL.

You are barking mad and have no sense of proportion.

You should first read the paper and then you can see what a useless, ill-conceived opinion piece it is. That's why nobody will ever hear anything about this again, apart of course from the endless repetitions in the blogosphere. You and your mates will make sure we'll have to suffer that.

Yes Anne, it is an opinion - as is the AGW theory. Which according to the famous Feynman lecture is only a "guess" until the guess matches or predicts the observations. So far the observations tell us the AGW theory is WRONG.

Here is another opinion kids:

http://tinyurl.com/moqe2e

You can debate global warming and climate change forever, but reducing the use of finite fossil fuels is good enough for me. If we can reduce oil imports, so much the better. As has been said "keep your eye on the prize".

Reel, you obviously don't know what theory means in science by trying to point out the word.

In science theory is an idea of how a system works. A theory is not something that is proved correct in any fashion.

There is a huge difference between what is called a theory and law in science and what it means to the layman. I suggest you look it up especially since you seem to believe that a scientific theory means it is based on speculative reasoning and not evidence and it has to be proved like an equation. That is not the case.

AGW is based on thousands of observations and papers that have been peer reviewed unlike the stuff you read.

Lastly, an opinion piece put together by a conservative writer is not an unbiased work. Just looking at it, it is full of opinion on motives if nothing else.

Here's an opposing view.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I see Reel$$ uses the same slur on the word theory that the religious creationists—excuse me, "intelligent design advocates"—want to be dished out in public-school science classes.  He wants you to think it's a "hypothesis" or even a hunch.

What he won't tell you (because he's a liar) is that a scientific theory is higher than a set of facts, because it unifies that set of facts in a framework.