EPA's own
research expert 'shut up' on climate change
Environmental Protection Agency officials
have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee
issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.
Alan Carlin, senior operations
research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or
NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment
findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating
CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open
internal discussion, claiming his research would have "a very negative
impact on our office."
His study was barred from
circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political
reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a
group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No,
I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this
bureau.'"
A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned
him not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on
endangerment."
Carlin, a researcher who earned his
doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an
undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology,
informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed
publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.
"It is also my view that the
critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data
rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote.
"I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to
significant new research … They are significant because they present
information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed
[greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."
After nearly one week of discussion,
NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March
17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.
"Alan, I decided not to forward
your comments," he wrote. "… The administrator and the administration
has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your
comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only
see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that
would be a very negative impact on our office."
In yet another e-mail sent only
minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote,
"With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other
issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on
climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is
going to do with Climate."
CEI charges that suppression of
Carlin's study denied public access to important agency information, as court
rulings have indicated that both "the evidence relied upon [by the agency]
and the evidence discarded" must be included in the rulemaking record.
"They could come up with
reasons to reject it, as I'm sure they're going to come up with reasons to
reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in
the general public and from skeptical scientists," Kazman
told WND. "But I'd say the real issue here is that this critique is coming
from a career EPA insider, so it can't be dismissed as the work of someone in
the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within
the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally
embarrassing to the agency."
CEI also said the incident violated
the EPA's commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.
Prior to taking office, EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, "As Administrator, I will ensure
EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three
fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule
of law, and overwhelming transparency."
Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of
President Obama's April 27 speech to the National
Academy of Sciences in which he stated, "[U]nder
my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are
over."
In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, "Because of ideology, however, it was
this back seat to which Mr. Carlin's study was relegated; more precisely, it
was booted out of the car entirely."
"The irony of the president and
Administrator Jackson talking about EPA's new transparency and commitment to
scientific integrity, that's really incredible," Kazman
said.
CEI is asking the agency to make
Carlin's study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public
response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals
against Carlin for his research.
Kazman said the issue is "coming to a head" because the
EPA's internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey
climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote
Friday on the House floor.
He believes Carlin's study could
have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research
behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency
are being silenced.
"Any right-minded administrator
would have said, 'Fine, put it in and we'll give our reasons for why we reject
his contentions," Kazman said. "But
instead, they shut the guy up."
Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031