Fox & Friends embraces falsehood undermining "hushed up" EPA report
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: In an interview with Alan Carlin, co-author of an internal EPA document that the agency allegedly -- in Steve Doocy's words -- "hushed up," Fox & Friends advanced the document's false claim that, as Doocy put it, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping."
During a June 30 Fox & Friends interview with Alan Carlin, the co-author of an internal Environmental Protection Agency document that the agency allegedly, in co-host Steve Doocy's words, "hushed up," Doocy advanced the document's false claim that, as he put it, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." In fact, Doocy's claim is simply not true. In addition, during the interview, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted that Carlin is a "scientist," and Doocy called Carlin a "man of science." However, the EPA has reportedly said in a statement that "[t]he individual in question [Carlin] is not a scientist." That statement was included in a June 29 FoxNews.com article about Carlin's report.
During the segment, Carlson told Carlin, "[M]ost of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years." Similarly, Doocy said to Carlin, "You're a man of science, you're just presenting the facts as you see them, and yet, it looks like your bosses were involved in political interference."
However, the June 29 FoxNews.com article about the controversy stated that "[a]n EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday [June 29] that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included 'no original research' in his report." The article also quoted an official statement from the EPA that included a similar claim about Carlin:
The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."
Likewise, a June 26 CBSNews.com article reported that "[t]he EPA ... said in its statement: 'The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.' "
While Carlson read a statement from the EPA during the Fox & Friends segment, it did not address the question of whether the EPA considered him a "scientist."
According to his employee profile, Carlin is a Senior Operations Research Analyst at EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post that in reading the internal EPA document that Carlin co-authored, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution."
From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Welcome back. As Congress debated energy legislation just last week, a disturbing story was quietly spreading about an internal report at the EPA that had to be used or hushed -- what is the word? Hushed, before anyone heard about it. The report debunked the science behind global warming, and its conclusions proved so inconvenient that that report was shelved.
CARLSON: All right, so we have the person who wrote this report, Alan Carlin, a researcher at the EPA and the author of that controversial report. He joins us live this morning from D.C. Good morning to you, Mr. Carlin.
CARLIN: Good morning.
CARLSON: All right, so most of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years. Tell us in a nutshell what your report said this spring.
CARLIN: The most important finding was that EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and have done.
DOOCY: And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping. So your report pretty much turned the whole global warming debate on its head. And what happened to your report? I understand it was hushed up.
CARLIN: My supervisor decided not to forward it to the group within EPA who had the responsibility for preparing a overall report which would guide EPA on whether to find that the emission of global warming gases would be something that EPA should regulate.
CARLSON: Right. And why should Americans care about that? Because they just passed cap and trade Friday night, at least the House did, and maybe this report could have changed some of those congressmen and women's minds. Here's the email from your supervisor after you submitted the report. It's unbelievable.
It says this: "The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. 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."
There's something illegal about that, is there not, sir?
CARLIN: I have no idea, but it does indicate that at least my supervisor did not want to raise these issues to the groups within EPA that do have the responsibility for preparing the overall report.
DOOCY: Well, look, here you are. You're a man of science, you're just presenting the facts as you see them, and yet, it looks like your bosses were involved in political interference. "We're going to -- we're not going to present Alan's findings because it's not helpful to the administration's argument."
CARLIN: You have just read the really important email, and I think it speaks for itself.
CARLSON: All right, let's take a look at what the EPA is now responding to -- because, by the way, they didn't want these emails to get out. Somebody anonymously sent these emails to a newspaper. Here's what the EPA says.
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an agency review was conducted."
That's a bunch of gobbledygook that I don't even really get, other than they're saying that your report was considered. Do you agree with that?
CARLIN: All that I know was that I was told that it was not forwarded to the people working on the report. What actually happened is not known to me.
DOOCY: Yeah. Since this story hit the fan, everything OK at work back at the EPA, Alan?
CARLIN: Things are a little strained --
DOOCY: Yeah.
CARLIN: -- but as of last night, I did still have a job.
CARLSON: All right. Well, how dare you for sticking to your convictions, Alan. I'm joking. Alan Carlin, research analyst, author of the report, 38-year veteran at the EPA, thanks for sharing your mind-blowing story with us this morning.
DOOCY: And thanks, Alan. And a scientific point of view that we don't hear much these days about the globe is cooling. Who knew?
He is not a climatologist. That's what one needs to be to make the conclusions he has made. A person who majored in 'science' back in the 50's and 60's is not equivalent to a climatologist.
"Alan Carlin, an economist for the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics who drafted an unsolicited report questioning the need for regulation of CO2 and disputing the assertion of a scientific consensus on global warming. Carlin asked his superiors to consider his report when drafting the agency's endangerment finding on CO2 released earlier this year. According to NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, Carlin made a number of very basic errors in his scientific analysis, and in any case put forth nothing new, just a rehash of "right wing pseudoscience."
Jonathan Hiskes at Grist reports that, far from being "suppressed," the "scandalous" emails reveal little more than a management-employee dispute. Carlin's boss simply asked Carlin to get back to work on other things, being that his job at the EPA is that of economist, not climate scientist..."
These morons won't listen to you so why bother.
These morons won't listen to you so why bother.
my post showed that this wasn't a solicited report and full of rightwing nonsense. Carlson wasn't even supposed to be working on this issue and not on the committee to issue findings. He's not a climate scientist.
I'm glad, though, that you stop in to blow smoke here instead of polluting the air we're all breathing...
>>And you're okay with that? It's okay with you that information debunking the stuff coming out of the EPA was hushed? You do realize that he was a scientist and an economist, right?
From what I see, he has a BS in physics, but now works on economics issues because he has PhD in that area.
Having BS in Physics does not make him a scientist. It means he as studied one scientific area. He probably has some skills of scientific enquiry, but that doesn't mean he actually does scientific work.
And it is pretty clear that he was lying when he said his manager didn't forward on his "memo" (in an area in which he neither worked nor, apparently, has any expertise.)
Ever worked for a large enterprise? Tried telling experts in another section that they were wrong? Were you surprised when your boss told you to gt back to the job you were hired for?
May I suggest you consider the phenomenon known as "confirmation bias" and ponder whether you might be displaying that effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Respectfully....
Where are temperatures falling? All anyone has to do is listen to his/her own weather forecaster. Each one gives information about high and low records. The worst times for both highs and lows was in the 1940s everywhere I've ever lived - TX, FL, OH, PA, MI. Also the 1970s had some pretty mean records. But, unless you're in about a dozen cities out west, there is no evidence of major temperature increases.
I applaud the man for trying to do what was right. And I applaud Fox for interviewing the man and getting the word out. As usual, lamestream media wants to go along with the administration they worship.
Yearly data is almost worthless when taken in isolation. The only reasonable way to evaluate data regarding global warming is to look at long term trends. The long term trend hasn't stopped. The world is warming, even if the last few years haven't been the warmest ones on record. We had an outlier year about 10 years ago. That doesn't change the long term trend that it's been less warm recently than it was 10 years ago in that one outlier year.
Precisely. Nothing further.
The real problem here is that you cannot look at patterns in such tiny 5-year incremements. These are patterns that occur over long periods of time with fluctuations in shorter time periods.
The computer models used for predictions are not being regularly updated because people are finding out that none of the predictions were true. If the models were updated regularly with current data, there would have been no Cap & Trade bill in the House and it wouldn't be an issue in the Senate either.
China, the world's biggest user of CO2, has no intentions of doing anything like the US is considering. Neither is India, another huge CO2 emitter.
If the US actually does drop emissions, it will do next to nothing in the global picture. But it will cost each person dearly in new taxes that Obama promised would not happen.
You do realize part of the amendments made at 3 a.m. for the House bill was to make sure to include any family of 4 making over $33,000 to be taxed, right?
What your essentially saying amounts to saying the following about the following sequence:
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 16. 4. 5. 8. 9. 12.
These numbers are not increasing but getting smaller over time because the number 12 is lower than the number 16. Get your head out of your butt and stop lying.
Only if you consider shutting down coal plants, taking cars off the road, etc as costing nothing. Ever modernized any piece of technology? Like a computer? Fun fact: it costs money. The "decades old" push for hybrid and electric cars is patently false, given that you assert that it has been technologically and economically viable to mass produce cars that employ green techonology in its infancy, but, as technological advancement persists, the cost of these technologies has made electric cars viable only recently. The problem has not been addressed and unless we take steps to address it, it will never be addressed because it just costs too much for a conservative to be comfortable. You guys really need to learn to look at the big picture beyond yourselves.
Thanks,P&R. That may be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read here, and you're in some stiff competition with many other dittobots.
Your childlike view of complex issues would be adorable if you didn't manage to stagger to the voting booths every few years.
I wish I'd thought of that several years ago. It shouldn't cost anythng to NOT be threatened by Islamofascism, should it? Why should I have my money diverted to NOT appease the people who want to KILL US ALL ???
Har! LOve you guys!
Anything other than Kato Institute reports?
Do you know the difference between local weather and global climate? Faux News doesn't. Hannity said last week that because it was unusually cold in the northeast last winter, there is no global warning. So let me play Hannity-style scientist for a minute. It was 83 the day after Christmas in Dallas last year. There. Case closed. Global warming exists. Oh wait - maybe if I were a bean counter economist I'd have more creds.
You people are your own worst enemies.
If you look on the left side, there's the word "Deviation".
What this intended to demonstrate is that fluctuations clearly occur, but taking measurements at 5-10 year intervals is looking at climate change in a vacuum.
The trend is obvious and not deniable.
You can claim it's from cows, people, sun spots, whatever floats your boat. But the changes are real and are happening.
Where does your graph come from? What is a basis point? What does it mean by deviation? That type of information would be helpful rather than simply pointing to the points on the graph.
"DOOCY: And thanks, Alan. And a scientific point of view that we don't hear much these days about the globe is cooling. Who knew?"
Doocy, trying to win the Geo. W. Bush literacy award for June.
Oh wait. Fox.
Product Description
Is the weather truly getting worse? When it comes to global warming, dire predictions seem to be all we see or hear. Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic. The science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions. The authors compellingly illuminate the other side of the story, the science we aren't being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic.
From the Back Cover
"Michaels and Balling claim that, although global warming is real, it does not herald a climate crisis and that human beings cannot 'significantly alter the temperature trajectory of the planet.' They present detailed evidence that climate data is inaccurate, the fear that permafrost will release huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane is unfounded and that 'horror stories about an imminent collapse of Greenland's ice simply aren't borne out by the fact that it was warmer there for decades in the early 20th century, and for millennia after the end of the last ice age.' The authors make persuasive arguments and climate crisis skeptics will applaud the book's message." --PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
You say it is biased. Where is your proof.
About the Book
Why is news about global warming always bad? Why do scientists so often offer dire predictions about the future of the environment? In Meltdown, climatologist Patrick J. Michaels says it’s only natural. He argues that the way we do science today--when issues compete with each other for monopoly funding by the federal government--creates a culture of exaggeration and a political community that then takes credit for having saved us from certain doom.
Michaels starts with a succinct discussion of climate-change science and then unrolls a litany of falsehood, exaggeration, and misstatement. He cites hundreds of errors and exaggerations in scientific papers, news reports, and television sound bites--from the “National Assessment” of global warming, a Clinton-era document that used computer models that its authors knew did not work, to the infamous New York Times story about the melting of the North Pole, published in September 2000 and halfheartedly retracted three weeks later.
About the Author
Patrick J. Michaels is research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association’s worldwide competition for public service writing, and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year,” awarded by the Association of American Geographers.
This book actually admits that human activity is causing global climate change (and overall warming) but posit that it's no big deal and that all those other climate scientists are just being hysterical and should chill out.
The one negative review of the book on Amazon mentions that the charts & graphs would not be deciferable to a layman, and that climate change deniers often use such to sound impressive but the numbers don't add up and they often skew data. The review concludes with this paragraph:
"The real proof of climate change, however, is not in numbers on a chart, but the changes in vegetation, nesting habits of birds, dying lichen, melting glacier ice, thawing permafrost, etc. This book had lots of graphs, but the explanations failed to offset the observations of climage change going on all around us. I found it a waste of time and money to read. Those actually working in the field, however, should read and analyze the work. I don't think we have all the answers about the extent of global warming now and in the future, though the issue, I think, is very, very serious."
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Extremes-Global-Warming-Science/product-reviews/1933995238/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_recent?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
Why Mary, I bet Cheny, Jpeagle and the soda do just that, making anywhere from 5-7 K a month. We should congratulate them for being A-one capitalists, while making sure nobody gets the information they need about climate change and it's consequences.
How 'bout a free home on any mountain top in West Virginia--as long as the mineral rights are being "utilized" by coal companies?
I don't get your second sentence. As with the other posts, just stating there is a bias, does not prove it. After all everything MMFA writes is with a bias. Do you discount everything you read here?
It was nice of you to point out the one negative review. By the time I read it, there was another. Here is the breakdown.
5 star: (10)
4 star: (1)
3 star: (1)
2 star: (1)
1 star: (2)
It looks like a lot more people like it than otherwise. Maybe I'll go read it. :-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Even Media Matters could spend more time debunking the more legit nets then spending time trying to make a silk purse out of that bunch of sow's ears.
Did anyone else notice the transformer face on the ice in the global warming pic?
Mr. News
Al Gore, who won a Nobe Peace Prize and a Academy Award for inventing Global Warming, is also not a scientist or a economist.
One thing economist are good at is examining data and numbers, which is exactly what Alan Carlin did with data the EPA were producing. Alan Carlin came to a valid conclusion, that despite the liberal hysteria, the sky is not falling.
Not exactly what Marxist want to hear when pitching their Global Warming Mongering in a desperate attempt to take over America's Free Market Economy.
Alan Carlin should get a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics for his brilliant analysis.
Also, to be ad adequate scientific assessment, Carlin should have also discussed the long scientific literature that refutes the work he rips off without attribution. He does not. In short, he makes conclusions without addressing large segments of the published, peer review literature.
It seems to me that reports that are not based on the scientific literature, are not done by scientists in the relevant field, and are plagiarized have no business being placed into the scientific assessment process of any agency. Policy must be based on sound science, science that complies with the generally accepted standards. I can always find some article on the blogs or in other grey literature that makes the point I want to make. That is why we have peer review, scientific publications and scientific debate. The blogs do not, in general, meet scientific standards.
With respect to whether climate change is real -- I have two points. Every National Academy of Science body from any developed country has embraced the finding that the earth is warming and is caused, at least in part, by greenhouse gases. There is no question that great uncertainty exists, but to say we know, with certiainty that global warming is not caused by human actions (greenhouse gas emissions) is naive and dangerous. What if you are wrong? The catostrophic scenarios will impose great suffering on millions, no billions of people. Forgive me, I will add a third: Current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50% greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC. The new estimates help to better explain the trend in sea level that has been observed in recent decades as most of the sea-level rise observed until recently has been the result of thermal expansion of seawater.
One of the most dramatic developments since the last IPCC Report is the rapid reduction in the area of Arctic sea ice in summer.