About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Steyn cites discredited Carlin paper to allege "no global warming this century"

July 06, 2009 7:43 pm ET

SUMMARY: Mark Steyn wrote, "If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century." In fact, experts reject the idea that recent temperatures mean that global warming is slowing or does not exist.

23 Comments

In a July 6 Washington Times column, Mark Steyn cited a discredited report by EPA research analyst Alan Carlin as purported evidence that "[i]f you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period -- including a decline in each of the past three years relative to the year before -- climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures.

Steyn referred to Carlin's paper as "a report for the Environmental Protection Racket -- whoops, Environmental Protection Agency -- that the agency attempted to suppress." However, the EPA reportedly said in a statement that Carlin "is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue." Moreover, according to a Foxnews.com report, an EPA official said that Carlin acted "on his own," and not at the behest of the EPA. FoxNews.com reported:

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 official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

As Media Matters noted, in a February 11 Guardian op-ed, Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, wrote that claims about the pace of global warming based only on developments in the past 10 years or in the 1990s are not valid, "since natural variations always occur on this timescale." She continued, "1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record." According to the Met Office, "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming." This long-term trend can be seen in this graph of annual global average temperatures from the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre:

temps

Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post that in reading Carlin's internal EPA document, "[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 Steyn's July 6 Washington Times column:

I don't know how [New York Times columnist Tom] Friedman defines "young," but let's be generous: If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None.

Admittedly, the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you're stuck living in. Alan Carlin, in a report for the Environmental Protection Racket -- whoops, Environmental Protection Agency -- that the agency attempted to suppress, says:

"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."

The Obama administration is getting into the global-warming beads and kaftan just as everyone else is beginning to toss 'em into the recycling bin. Same with government automobiles: Been there, drove that -- from Eastern Europe to Northern Ireland.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by LIBERTY OR DEATH (July 06, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
      1 3
      It would seem that if carbon dioxide is causing any warming at all than it is easily overwhelmed by other ,probly quite natural, climate forces.
      Scientist are continuing to investigate the possible impacts of solar forces on climate and in some cases have shown strong correlations .
      other scientist are questioning weather cosmics rays may influence the formation of clouds that then control the amount of sunlight reaching
      the earth's surface Changes in ozone have also been proposed as drivers of climate. That all three of these issues are actively being explored
      gives the lie to the claims that climate science is settled and that carbon dioxide is known to be the sole major cause of recent climate warming
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bobklahn (July 07, 2009 9:20 am ET)
        3  
        "That all three of these issues are actively being explored
        gives the lie to the claims that climate science is settled and that carbon dioxide is known to be the sole major cause of recent climate warming"

        Funny, I don't know of anyone who says CO2 is the *SOLE* major cause. In fact, recent reports are warning of even more potent causes, such as methane, being released from frozen lands as they thaw. That other forces are primary in our climate is given. What you miss is, global warming of 2 to 4 degrees is on top of normal climate. And that is where man made emissions can be effecting change.
        Yes, other causes are being investigated, that is called science. That is how science works.
        Climate science is not settled, science is not settled. Once science is settled it's no longer science, it's engineering.
        It has been long known that solar forces have a correlation to climate, as long as it has been known the the tilt of the earth causes change of seasons. That doesn't mean there is no general consensus; they will be arguing the decimal points pretty much forever. Just as they do in every field of science.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (July 06, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
      1  
      Blah, blah, blah. Same old stuff over and over. This "debate"(?) will be going on even if a GWD is wading down 5th Avenue on Manhattan at the time. (due to global sea level rising)

      Don''t get me wrong, we still need to out falsehoods and lies, it is just so tiring to hear the same aurguments over and over.
      If only they could come up with something new. (and no, temperature variations on other planets do not count)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (July 07, 2009 12:45 am ET)
        2  
        Same old stuff over and over

        I'm with you on that. I mean, it's not just BS, it's not even original BS. It's the same old, same old.

        It's Rule #11: When a claim of yours has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless. When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, perhaps a few months, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (July 06, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
      3 1
      I'm always taken aback by the deniers. What's in it for them? Why the fanatical opposition to what the scientists say is demonstrable?
      I can't believe that it's all about the effects of regulation on the economy. I could understand that there could be an economic case for limiting the effect of regulation but not this wholesale rejection of the evidence.
      It's a globe, it's huge, there is some variability in different spots due to differing conditions. Real Climate talks about the temperature differences between Eastern and Western Antarctica. Don;t they consider the probabilities? What if they're wrong?
      Why are they so careless with their children's lives? They pretend to worry about the effect of deficits, how about the paucity of their denier arguments?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 07, 2009 3:29 am ET)
        5 1
        It's to distract us from the reality of global climate change. That's all it is. It's all they've got.

        And if they distract us, they win in the short term. They can continue to line their pockets with money in their shortsighted denial of the problem.

        That's what Republicans are all about, is shortsighted personal benefit.

        No talk about birth control, only about abstinence, because I can't allow myself to picture my child having sex, even protected sex. I'd rather pretend that it will never happen than try to prevent an unwanted pregnancy by acknowledging that it could happen.

        No talk about how Bush's tax cuts hurt our descendents' pocketbooks in the future, because all I care about is my pocketbook today. Even after my president decided to wage a war, I'm okay with him not even putting the war funding on the books, because that would ruin my too-rosy scenario about the deficits even more. I'd rather pretend that tax breaks will grow the economy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by t4yl0r10 (July 07, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
          1 1
          please guys. really. Global warming?

          Distract who from what? This cap and trade crap is the worst idea any president has ever had. Its going to kill our largest energy industry, lose hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, jobs that will then be shipped overseas, allow China to completely control the worlds coal industry, and increase energy costs for every American. How is that a good plan for the economy?

          I'm fairly confident the people after their personal benefits, aka MONEY, are the lobbyists ( who helped get obama elected ) pooling for the 'renewable energy' and bankrupting the coal industry. If this report had been released before the vote, it would have meant trouble on the 'emissions' bill. Funny how quickly it was squashed so that the public doesn't know whats really going on.

          I think i just threw up a little in my mouth, this global warming hoax makes me sick. I'm sure San Fran and NY are happy about the bill, but the rest of the nation is not. Don't drink the kool aid guys.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 07, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
        3  
        I've had the same thought. The right is (suddenly) worried about their children's future in regards to paying the national debt (never mind the obvious hypocrisy there re: Bush's deficits) but they don't seem at all concerned about leaving them an inhabitable planet.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RoadScholar (July 07, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
      3  
      The only people who deny anthropogenic global warming are the science- challenged. They don't understand it because they can't understand it. They just parrot the garbage they've heard on FOX.

      Global warming is science; the denial is what's propaganda, a conspiracy of false doubts exactly like the false doubts about lung cancer the cigarette industry planted in the '60s, calling that connection "junk science." We've seen how that played out.

      The fossil fuel industry is playing the same game now, assisted by conservative-biased media. Among actual, peer-reviewed, critical scientists, there is no controversy. None, except how fast the climate will destabilize as a result of greenhouse gases, and what price humanity will pay for not getting them under control sooner.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 07, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
        2 3
        Road,

        Of course you are 100% certain you are correct. No need to look at all the scientists who disagree, the subject is settled. After all, Gore knows all. Only AGW believers have science on their side. The non believer's are really just a bunch of heretics. Perhaps we should burn those non believers at the stake... Scratch that.. that would just cause more global warming. So let's just bury our collective heads in the sand whenever any study goes against our relig..er, science.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (July 07, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
          2  
          No need to look at all the scientists who disagree...

          Once again, most if not ALL of those scientists are bought and paid for by corporations.

          And, once again, you gleefully swallow their lies.

          What if Al Gore is right? Oops, we just polluted our way out of a habitable planet.

          Why do you hate our children's future so much?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 07, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
              1
            Once again you spout statistics but don't back them up. Where did you find out that all of "those scientists" are bought and paid for by corporations?

            The inconvenient truth is that AGW predictors are also bought and paid.

            Hey, what if Dr. James Hansen, (Gore's go to man,) had been correct in the 70's. His computer models claimed that we were headed into an ice age.

            Why do AGW believers discount any facts that go against their religious belief?

            Just because AGW believers uncritically accept heavily politicized documents (IPCC Reports), does not mean everyone is so gullible.

            If Gore is right why doesn't he talk about the recent events that disprove his contention?

            "The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. ...

            ... Gore has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. ...

            ...There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

            In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate."

            http://climateresearchnews.com/
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vhw28672478 (July 07, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
              1 1
              you are a joke
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (July 07, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
              1  
              The inconvenient truth is that AGW predictors are also bought and paid.
              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              This is a lie.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 07, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
                1 1
                Solon,

                You make me laugh. You obviously missed the larger point. Nobody does it for free.

                There had to be some corporation, institution, political organization, University, Government grant, etc., etc, that bought and paid for the AGW studies.

                The fact is that it doesn't matter who paid for any of the studies. The relevant facts are the science behind it. it is a canard dreamed up by AGW believers that only AGW deniers are bought and paid.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 07, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
            1 1
            Here are more of "those scientists". Tell me which ones were bought and paid for by corporations.

            Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

            The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

            http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vhw28672478 (July 07, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
              1  
              you are wrong global warming is facts
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bilbo_dies (July 07, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
              2  
              Ok, let's look at one of your "factual" statements.

              "In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate."

              Depending on my beliefs I could say that this statement tells me that Global Warming is a myth and the earth is cooling.

              I could also say:
              "So, global warming is being held in check by other climate factors but; we should see an increase in temperatures again in as little as three decades."
              After all it was an open ended statement.

              Also, just to be fair, if you would provide links to these "peer reviewed scientific studies", that would be nice.
              (I am scientifically curious and wouldn't mind some educational reading)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (July 08, 2009 7:19 am ET)
                   
                Yes, you could say that global warming will stop for three decades and then start. That just shows the uncertainty of the AGW position.

                A quick internet search can find peer reviewed studies that contradict AGW. You really don't need me to find them.
                AGW believers look foolish saying there are no peer reviewed studies contradicting AGW.

                http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23406/Scores_of_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html

                G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:

                Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.

                International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

                World Scientific Publishing Co.

                There is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :

                http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

                http://www.thepiratescove.us/2007/12/11/global-warming-today-peer-review-says-man-not-at-fault/

                Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts”

                Here is one more link that shows 22 peer reviewed studies.

                http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

                Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (July 07, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
          1  
          Your obsession with Al Gore is creepy. Just send him your naked E-mails and be done with it. He is a spokesman giving the SCIENCE. You know that stuff YOU dont understand.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (July 07, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
              1
            What's up? have you been given a new quota of ad hominem attacks?

            Gotta love your attempts at verbal bullying. It's so liberal of you. :-)
            Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 07, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
        1  
        Republicans hate being told that they are wrong by experts.

        Do you know anyone who denies that experts might be people whose advice you'd want to rely upon? They are a Republican, almost certainly.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.