“Suppressed” Carlin report based on Patrick Michaels attack on EPA

A couple of days ago, I posted about economist Alan Carlin’s “suppressed” report on the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas endangerment finding. Not only was the report a pastiche of warmed over contrarian talking points attacking the scientific consensus on climate change, but at least one entire section had been lifted almost whole from longtime disinformation specialist Pat Michaels’ World Climate Report (WCR).

Now further study reveals an even more shocking connection: the “suppressed” Carlin report appears to have been inspired by, and largely lifted from, an attack on the EPA published last November in climate science disinformation specialist Patrick Michaels’ World Climate Report. And all this came without any attribution of the large swathes of copied material to WCR or the original author (presumably either Michaels or sidekick Chip Knappenberger).

There have been some interesting developments since I last wrote. Roger Pielke Jr has weighed in, equating the suppression of the Carlin report with the muzzling of James Hansen in 2007, and even suggesting that the latest U.S. Climate Change Special report shared some shoddy scholarship practices with Carlin’s ouevre. I’ll leave readers to ponder which of these assertions is the more patently ridiculous, but NASA’s Gavin Schmidt’s comments at RealClimate do shed some light on the former one.

Perhaps of greater consequence is the apparent determination of U.S. Senator James Inhofe to hold an investigation of the EPA’s supposed “suppression” of the report, as reported by FoxNews. Inhofe, of course, is a longtime climate contrarian whose Senate committee website was transformed into a climate disinformation clearinghouse under the stewardship of aide Marc Morano (now at Climate Depot).

Meanwhile the same Fox News report makes clear what we had already suspected: Carlin wrote the report on agency time, but under his own initiative.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist — not a scientist — included “no original research” in his report. The official said that Carlin “has not been muzzled in the agency at all,” but stressed that his report was entirely “unsolicited.”

“It was something that he did on his own,” the [EPA] official said. “Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up … a set of comments.”

It was against this backdrop that I went looking for more of Carlin’s sources. (If you want to follow along, and don’t mind downloading 4 Mb PDFs, Carlin’s draft is here and the final report is here).

In addition to the section on Greenland that I described before, I quickly discovered another whole lifted section (1.4 on hurricanes), pretty much verbatim from WCR’s blog post on hurricanes from November, 2008.

But then I decided to approach the problem the other way round and look for WCR “reports” on the EPA. And it turned out that there were quite a few:

Obviously, most of these were too late to make it into the report. But then I found one that wasn’t.

Lo and behold, there it was: an epic World Climate Report post from last November 19 with the straightforward title Why the EPA Should Find Against Endangerment. And it immediately became clear that I had found Carlin’s main inspiration and source.

The piece starts with the provocative (not to mention highly dubious) premise that the EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) supporting the Endangerment Finding is out of date because it is based on the 2007 assessment report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, the Endangerment TSD is largely a dated document which relies heavily on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007, but to meet the deadline for inclusion in the AR4, scientific papers had to be published by late 2005/early 2006. So, in the rapidly evolving field of climate change, by grounding its TSD in the IPCC AR4 the EPA is largely relying on scientific findings that are, by late 2008, nearly 3 years out of date.

And here is Carlin’s very opening salvo in Section 1, “Draft TSD Is Seriously Dated and the Updates Made Are Inadequate”, incorporating that very same premise:

Although a real effort has been made to introduce references to more recent CCSP reports, the draft endangerment TSD is largely a dated document which relies primarily on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A lot has happened in those intervening three years since the input deadline for AR4. The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007, but to meet the deadline for inclusion in the AR4, scientific papers had to be accepted for publication by early 2006. Given the lag between submission and acceptance the real cut-off for new research was even earlier. So, in the rapidly evolving field of climate change, by grounding its TSD in the IPCC AR4 the EPA is largely relying on scientific findings that are, by early 2009, largely 3 years or more out of date. [Emphasis added]

Carlin did manage to update to reflect current chronology, and added small embellishments of his own to emphasize the supposed “datedness” even more. But the passage is unquestionably cribbed from WCR, as is Carlin’s central overarching premise.

The WCR then moves on to perhaps the most widespread and deceptive of contrarian memes, that of supposed recent “global cooling.” (This has been discussed and debunked innumerable times, but if you must you can look at two of my recent modest efforts here and here, or innumerable posts at RealClimate [e.g here] or Tamino’s Open Mind [here]).

Global temperatures have declined (Figure 1a)—extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years (Figure 1c).

Carlin has exactly the same passage in section 1.2 – and he didn’t even have to change the numbering of the figures, which were also lifted straight out of WCR!

Next, WCR moves on to a brief discussion (and misleading interpretation) of the latest research on hurricanes and Greenland ice melt, with links to earlier blog posts. Of course, as noted above, the corresponding WCR posts on hurricanes and on Greenland were incorporated in their entirety into the Carlin opus.

In the last half of the post, WCR moves on to a discussion of the supposed lack of impact of global warming on humans.

But perhaps the most glaring problem of all with the EPA’s Endangerment TSD is the nearly complete disregard of observed trends in a wide array of measures which by and large show that despite decades of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (as detailed by the EPA) the U.S. population has triumphed over any changes in “vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts” that may have arisen (to the extent that any at all have actually occurred as the result of any human-induced climate changes).

This part of the WCR post became the pivotal section 3 of the Carlin report, “Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD”, which begins almost identically:

One of the problems with the EPA’s Endangerment TSD is the nearly complete disregard of observed trends in a wide array of measures which by and large show that despite decades of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. population does not seem to have been adversely affected by any vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts that may have arisen (to the extent that any at all have actually occurred as the result of any human-induced climate changes).

The following paragraph is identical in both, except for the figure numbers, of course:

For instance, despite the overall rise in U.S. and global average temperatures for the past 30 years, U.S. crop yields have increased (Figure 2), the population’s sensitivity to extreme heat has decreased (Figure 3), and our general air quality has improved (Figure 4). Further, there has been no long-term increase in weather-related property damage once changes in inflation, population size, and population wealth are accounted for (an essential step in any temporal comparison). All of these trends are in the opposite sense from those described in the EPA’s Endangerment TSD.

And, once again, all the figures are included.

In fact the entire section was lifted from WCR, including the concluding graph of life expectancy:

In the conclusion of section 3, Carlin did cut out some WCR verbiage about “just looking out the window”, cutting five paragraphs down to two:

What better measures of human health and welfare are there? In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and ambient levels. True, hurricanes will strike again in the future and cause a great deal of damage and suffering. But that will largely occur because our climate is one which includes hurricanes. The same is true for tornadoes, droughts, floods, heat-waves, cold outbreaks, strong thunderstorms, heavy rains, hail, lightning, snowstorms, blizzards, freezing rain, etc. Those are all aspects of our climate.

Climate change may alter the strength, path, or frequency of these events—lessening some and increasing others. But to the large part, our nation’s climate in the future will be made up of the same characteristics as it is today.

So there you have it. Four key sections of Carlin’s masterpiece, and indeed his central guiding premise, were lifted directly from an intellectually vacuous and misleading attack on the EPA on a blog run by a PR disinformation spinmeister with a long history of links to fossil fuel interests. And, of course, none of this was attributed to World Climate Report or the author (presumably Pat Michaels or Chip Knappenberger), compounding the shoddy misleading “scholarship” with outright plagiarism.

Apparently, some of Carlin’s supporters have complained that he was not given sufficient time to complete his work. If his superiors had not nipped his ill-conceived project in the bud, who knows what Cut-and-Paste Carlin could have achieved: perhaps a complete compendium of all the material found at World Climate Report and the Friends of Science, together with a “best of” selection from Inhofe’s website.

I fervently hope that now real and hard questions will start to be asked about the role of the major particpants in the shameful orchestrated attack on the EPA, starting with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Carlin himself. And it’s also high time to subject to greater scrutiny the fossil fuel companies and their PR surrogates who are behind the dissemination of so much of the gross misinformation that made up the Carlin report.

As for the EPA itself, it might want to check out some of Carlin’s other past work – who knows what other shenanigans might lurk. The only faintly embarrassing question the EPA needs to answer now is this: How did Alan Carlin ever manage to stay on the payroll for so long?


37 responses to ““Suppressed” Carlin report based on Patrick Michaels attack on EPA

  1. Thanx for the backgrounder. But I have a bone to pick.

    Due partly to this blog and to realclimate.org, I downloaded the subject report. Compounding my folly, I read it as well. I want my lost hours of life back.

    I agree with you and Mr. Schmidt of realclimate. My response to Mr. Carlin’s work is to quote Max Reger:

    “I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me.”

  2. Michael Searcy

    Excellent work.

  3. Jim Galasyn

    First! And once again, awesome.

    [DC: Almost.]

  4. The sentence on page 40 of Carlin is quite incomplete.
    “Shift to the warm-phase PDO in 1977 initiated global warming and recession of glaciers that persisted until 1998”
    The World Glacier Monitoring Service has noted that the peak percentage of glaciers retreating is not in 1998 but in 2005 or 2006 at more than 95% that is persisted alright.
    Or take a look at individual glaciers to see that recession continues.

  5. Deep:

    Could you blog about the Rahmstorf smoothing kerfuffle? While we are on different sides of the aisle, I get the impression of you having basic honesty as well as some curiosity to inspect both sides. I really respected you a while ago when you flatly corrected yourself on a technical point–I hate the very general tendency on the internet, to never cede a point.

    Reason, I ask is that it seems like the skeptics have got something on him for the adjustment of smoothing paramater based on new data (hunting the curve). It’s fine if you investigate it and come up with defense of Rahmstorf. Just would be a pleasure to have you put a little skull sweat on it.

    [DC: Snipped the last part – you know you can’t go there.

    Guess I’ll permit the digression, though. I did comment on this at Open Mind, but I haven’t had time to consider further or write it up. Patience, my friend …

    I appreciate your recognition and, for what it’s worth, I find you one of the very fairest minds on the “other side” (gotta watch the potty mouth, though).

    Openness and curiosity actually lead to interesting discoveries. For example, to bring it back to this post, I had thought upon reading the original RC post on the EPA Carlin kerfuffle that he had collaborated with Ken Gregory of the Friends of Science. I quickly realized that wasn’t the case, but the investigation led me to something just as compelling, IMHO.]

  6. Very fine sleuthing. I suspect there’s more scientific method in your post than in Carlin’s draft comments.

  7. Carlin isn’t the problem. The problem is the temperature keeps dropping.

    [DC: That tired shibboleth has been debunked so many times (including several links given above). But I agree with you that Carlin isn’t the problem, or more precisley, only a small part of the problem.

    The real problem is media complaisance with all the misinformation disseminated on behalf of fossil fuel companies.]

  8. This attack on Carlin’s report is typical of the global warming alarmist. Attack the individual but do little to talk about the science. This reminds me of what the Fascists did to their opponents in 1930s Germany on the way to their seizure of power.

    I have also read Carlin’s report and it is right on. Science consists of theories that must then be proven by observation. Observation shows the theory of man made global warming to be false. Dr. Leonard Weinstein, former senior research scientist at NASA Langley has also come out with the same conclusion as have many others.

    There is a mountain of evidence to show the theory to be false. It must be scary proposition for those who have “bet the farm’ on this theory. Denial and ad hominem attack will only get you so far. It is only a matter of time before this hoax is fully exposed for what it is.

    [DC: I’m afraid you are on the one in denial.

    First of all, I hesitate to call this document the Carlin report, as much of it was written by others. Perhaps we should call it the Michaels-Carlin report, affording lead author status to the one whose words and ideas are front and center

    Second, I have pointed to many examples of misleading interpretations of science found in the document, and even described some of them in detail. For example, I’ve quoted van de Wal as complaining bitterly of the misinterpretation of his Greenland ice melt paper, and that criticism was amplified by one of the actual reviewers of that paper in a comment here.

    The global warming “hoax” necessarily presupposes that the vast majority of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, have somehow entered into a giant conspiracy to deceive the world. Perhaps you are one of those ideologically predisposed to believe such palpable nonsense. How unfortunate for you, and for all of us.]

  9. Carlin iz not the problem, it’s the temperature of melting of steel…that and the little furry aliens at the Nevada Test Site.

    [DC: Take it easy, TCO, you’re starting to lose it. I do admit, though, there are a lot of your fellow luke- and non-warmers who apparently believe the world’s scientists are engaged in some massive conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax (see previous comment for example).]

  10. @realist: Thought you might want to know that as of today, Austin, TX has experienced record high temperatures for ten days in a row.

  11. I find it interesting that there have been multiple posts between WUWT and CA about how NOAA “plagiarized” Watts because they referenced surfacestations.org but not his self-published document in their “talking points”. In the case of Carlin, we have as clear a case of plagiarism as can be imagined, but such an accusation is not allowed.

    On the other hand, in the thread below, there are 56 uses of the word “fraud” and 33 uses of “incompetence” arguing which word is best to describe the large change in the US temperature series, even though Hansen specifically highlights both the magnitude and the reason in the 2001 GISTEMP paper.


    [DC: I think they did allow me to use the “p” word in reference to the Michaels-Carlin report, but I haven’t checked to see if it’s still there.]

  12. I find it interesting that there have been multiple posts between WUWT and CA about how NOAA “plagiarized” Watts because they referenced surfacestations.org but not his self-published document in their “talking points”.

    When, of course, the obvious explanation is that someone at NOAA noticed when Watts announced having reached the 70% photographed level over at surfacestations.org, and grabbed stuff.

    Before Watts announced his report…

    Totally explains why surfacestations.org, rather than the report, was referenced.

  13. Deep Climate

    Follow up to previous comment:
    cce, you were right. My comment at WattsUpWithThat EPA thread to the effect “you seem to be unclear on the concept of plagiarism” was deleted and replaced with this:

    Deep Climate (20:31:16) :

    [snip, policy – if you want to accuse people of plagaism, put your name to it, 24 hour timeout for deepclimate]

    In the original post moderator Evan had left his reply, which I subsequently quoted later:

    Deep Climate (20:50:45) :

    [REPLY – It was an internal report, not for publication, and, besides, it was fully footnoted. He neither claimed nor implied that he did any of the original research, himself. ~ Evan]

    You are sadly mistaken. None of the World Climate Report material that Carlin cut and pasted was attributed or footnoted. In fact, Carlin carefully removed all references to World Climate Report, as I explained in my first post.

    In denial, indeed.

  14. I wouldnt necessarily call global warming alarmism a conspiracy. We must remember what President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speach,

    ‘we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite” “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present”

    This is the same speach that Eisenhower warned of the dangers of ‘military-industrial-complex’. I believe what we are facing now is what he might have called the ‘climate-industrial-complex’.

    Industry wants to capitalize on the fear of man made global warming. Wall Street desires the creation of a new currency ‘carbon credits’. Science is chasing research money. Government desires new sources of revenue. Some ex politicians seek relevance.

    I suppose one could call it a conspiracy of sorts, especially since it is based on bogus information.

    [DC: First, let’s get the quote right: you’ve reversed the two excerpts so as to change the sense and context. What a surprise.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    In other words, Eisenhower was referring to the “danger” of “domination of the nation’s scholars” by the military-industrial complex. This is the subject of the vast majority of the speech, of course. He then went on to say that we should not swing so far the other way as to allow the scientific elite itself to control public policy.

    The previous Administration’s war on science, still being waged by Republican dinosaurs like Inhofe and retrogressive members of the fossil fuel industry, was and is no small part of the danger that Eisenhower so eloquently foresaw. Now, thankfully, there is a new Administration that, once again, does indeed hold “scientific research and discovery in respect.”

  15. There you go once again….twisting things around to make them fit your view of the world.

    I would invite anyone to read Eisenhower’s farewell speech and let them decide for themselves if what he said applies to todays situation.


    I can’t seem to find reference to Senator Inhofe in Eisenhower’s speach but I sure do see reference to people like you.

    [DC: I see. I catch you reversing the two quotes and omitting the key connecting phrase, and somehow I’m the one who’s “twisting things around.” That’s rich.

    You’ve had your say and shown your true colours. If you want to keep posting irrelevant comments and spouting your illogical conspiracy theories, you are welcome to do so at Unthreaded #1.]

  16. There is no reference in Eisenhower’s speech to ignoring the advice of the National Academy of Sciences (which was established for a reason) and every other serious scientific society in the world in favor of libertarian think tanks and online aggregators of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Only a fool would do that, and there are apparently a lot of fools.

    In contrast, a few months ago Inhofe was railing against Obama (from Afghanistan no less) for “disarming America” and “gutting the military” because his budget cut a bunch of pet military projects, despite an increase in overall military spending. THAT is what Eisenhower was talking about.

  17. Pingback: More heavy lifting from the “suppressed” Alan Carlin « Deep Climate

  18. Nice work here, DC. I’ve added you to my blogroll, which I obviously should have done some time ago.

    As a Canadian, I especially appreciate the work you’re doing in exposing FoS, and the NRSP…

    [DC: Thanks for the kind words. I’ve just visited One Blue Marble for the first time, and it’s definitely going on my blogroll too (there will be an expansion soon).

    As for FoS and other Canadian disinformation groups, stay tuned … there are some interesting revelations coming soon.]

  19. Pingback: Did the EPA really silence a dissenting report on global warming? » Mind of Dan

  20. Pingback: Misleading by deniers « A Man With A Ph.D.

  21. Pingback: Conclusions from suppressed EPA report on CO2 Endangerment - Page 9 - PriusChat Forums

  22. Perhaps Carlin could be censured or fired for plagiarism. Why don’t you send your evidence of plagiarism to the EPA director?

    [DC: Normally, trying to get a plagiarized document adopted as official department policy would be grounds for dismissal, or at least disciplinary action. But I imagine the EPA is treading softly, because of the political sensitivity of the matter (and, yes, I believe they are aware of the issues).

    However, I am surprised at the attitude of the mainstream media so far. Most have ignored the contents of the Carlin report, naturally. But they’ve dutifully reported, say, Republican calls for investigations into the “suppression” without reporting the obvious problems with, um, dubious sources and lack of attribution of same (not to mention the motives and role of Competitive Enterprise Institute).

    As long as the media doesn’t cover this and ask the right questions, Carlin and his new best friends in the Republican Party will get away with it. Maybe this will heat up again when the summer news lull is over.]

  23. John A. Jauregui

    Using simple logic, historic observation and just a touch of common sense we can ask two revealing questions:

    [DC: There are so many errors in the premises of your questions that I hardly know where to start. Anyway, this comment is clearly off topic so I have moved it to Unthreaded.]

  24. Pingback: Wonk Room » Chamber Of Commerce SVP Bill Kovacs Accuses EPA Of ‘Cherry-Picking’ Global Warming Science

  25. Steve Bloom

    Nice work, DC. My speculation re Carlin is that he’s very close to retirement and is suffering from some sort of age-related mental problem, and that his superiors are tolerating him until he can be shoved out the door.

  26. [DC: Off topic remark and link removed to Unthreaded, per comment policy.]

    Also, Carlin hit the nail right on its head.

    Governments have paid too little attention to the science of global warming and have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups. He says the EPA has not made a careful review of them and is likely to be blaimed for this later.

    His findings are based on the best science, in the sense that they most closely correspond to available observations.

    Global temperatures have declined for 11 years. The PDO and AMO have turned negative. Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed (there are fewer hurricanes). Greenland ice is not melting like some say it is. It has been observed that water vapor is not a positive feedback, it is negative. The IPCC has incorrectly dismissed the impact of solar variability on temperatures. Research suggests that solar variability accounts for up to 68% of the increase in earths temperatures with strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations.

    Surface temperature measurement is not accurate due to the growth of urban areas. Satellite records of temperature do not show the same temperature increase as land based sensors.

    Almost all fluctiations in temperature appear to be due to natural causes and not human caused pollution as defined by the clear air act.

    [DC: All of these assertions have been debunked over and over. Every one of them is either based on non-peer-reviewed “science” or else gross misinterpretations of published science.

    For example, “Greenland ice is not melting like some say it is” (whatever that means). I guess you missed this comment from the reviewer of the Greenland ice melt paper by Van de Wal et al. That’s the paper that was the subject of a distorted “analysis” in Patrick Michaels’ World Climate Report (and then lifted verbatim by Carlin in his report).

    The acceleration to worry about is from changes in the calving front, and the resultant retreat and acceleration that has been observed on almost all Greenland marine terminating outlet glaciers.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/moulins-calving-fronts-and-greenland-outlet-glacier-acceleration ]/

    I suspect none of you have read his report. He is merely trying to protect his agency from making a terrible mistake. You people label him as senile, you dont even know him, you just dont like what he says.

    Why not read his report first. Maybe you will learn something.

    [DC: Protecting the EPA from a “terrible mistake”? You must be joking. Carlin’s co-operation with the CEI’s attack on the EPA, including his error-laden interviews on FoxNews, appear to be calculated to provide maximum embarrassment to the EPA.

    Links for the draft version and final versions are given above. It is unnecessary to repeat them. Didn’t you bother reading the post? And, yes, I have read Carlin’s report. Several times, if you include re-reading all the stuff he copied in its original form by Patrick Michaels and the others.

    If you post any more irrelevant nonsense like the above tripe, I’ll move it to Unthreaded where it belongs. I’m very patient and polite but you are fast wearing out your welcome.]


  27. John A. Jauregui

    [DC: Comment removed. This off-topic comment was already moved once to Unthreaded #1. It’s comment #10 there].

  28. John A. Jauregui

    [DC : This question is regarding a response to an off-topic comment. It should be posted at the proper thread (Unthreaded #1 ).]

  29. Geoff Pohanka

    This is a note to the moderator.

    I was merely reporting what Carlin said in his report so that any participants in this blog could for themselves decide what the reality is.

    If you think Carlin is a puppet of the CEI or Michaels, I dont see any truth in this.

    [DC: Carlin actually said very little of his own in the report. All of the assertions you paraphrase came from “analysis” at blogs like Patrick Michaels’ World Climate Report or astroturf groups like Friends of Science, most of it directly lifted.

    If you want to discuss the specific Michaels/Carlin assertions discussed in this post, go right ahead. But keep it short and to the point. These assertions include:
    – Supposed “out of date” findings from the IPCC and USCCP reports
    – Supposed decline in global temperature (already debunked dozens of times)
    – Supposed lack of endangerment from anthropogenic global warming imputed from past improvements in measures of U.S. health and welfare

    Finally, I’ve never stated or implied that Carlin is a “puppet” of Patrick Michaels. In fact, it’s quite probable that Michaels was unaware of Carlin’s massive plagiarism of his work. As for CEI, there remain a number of unresolved questions and coincidences. But there is strong evidence that CEI played a key role behind the scenes of Carlin’s interviews at FoxNews. I’ll be posting more on this at some point.]

  30. Pingback: Dropping the P-Bomb « Deep Climate

  31. Pingback: NYT’s Andy Revkin backtracks (but not nearly enough) « Deep Climate

  32. Pingback: John Broder of NYT: The EPA fights back on Carlin “suppression” « Deep Climate

  33. Are you angry about this obvious fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue? Take responsibility and take action. Stop all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. Stop donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. START donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. Write your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. Write your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. That’s what I have done in response to this outrageous violation of the public trust. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near to the truth?

    [DC: I don’t usually permit these sorts of patently false accusations, but I’m permitting this rant this one time, so that folks can understand what rational people are up against.

    It’s obvious that the only “cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue” is being perpetrated by the usual suspects who have been doing this for years: PR disinformation specialists like Marc Morano, Tom Harris and the CeI team, the unqualified “scientists” who co-operate with them and the hidden fossil-fuel interests supporting all of this. Then of course we have politicians like Inhofe and media like FoxNews, WSJ and National Post who are essentially using this propganda to conduct a war on science and reason.]

  34. Good grief, no wonder CRU scientists (present and past) have had death threats. The lunatic fringe is scary.

  35. Pingback: Did the EPA really silence a dissenting report on global warming? | Mind of Dan

  36. Alan Carlin was scheduled to speak at Heartland’s 2011 Washington conference. He is also on that fake “religious” site called the Cornwall Alliance.

  37. Deep, if you have the time, it would be great if you could have a look at copy and paste problems in the article of Alan Carlin, which seems to be based on this report. It was published in a special issue of a scientific journal, which hopefully cares more about plagiarism. It gives the impression of a copy and paste work from a number of blogs. I would expect that the peer review was light, it only took a few weeks and Alan Carlin himself was guest editor of the special issue.