jump to navigation

Why the EPA should have listened to Alan Carlin on global warming June 28, 2009

Posted by tkcollier in cool stuff.
trackback

As reported earlier in this series of articles (see here, here and here), EPA analyst Alan Carlin wrote a report in March that urged the EPA to conduct further review of evidence on the science of global warming.

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.

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.

via Why the EPA should have listened to Alan Carlin on global warming.

This controversy has a vigorous Sladshot blog string (Sladshot is a popular Geek Blog)

Comments»

1. Alan l Boles - June 29, 2009

From the beginning we have been promised that we would have transparency. And yet we have a clear and present policy of discrepancy of information. As well as a suppressive attitude towards every area of study that the present Administration dose not endorse. As a little boy I spent time with my Grand Mother in rural Texas. Where She total Me about raising six boys through the Depression. One was ” you can always tell who the guilty dog is, he’s the one that barks first” and “the problem with lying is you forget who you lied to”. And” the worst of it is that they start to believe their own lies”. Yes we should address pollution and global warming. But lets do it the right way, with true science not political science.

2. tkcollier - July 9, 2009

Alan’s key point was to quote his report ” Fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric C02 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there’s been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline.”


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: