Right Mind

Alan Carlin: Politics and Science at the EPA

Alan Carlin holds a B.S. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology; and a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He’s no dummy. You can read his research over at http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/

I’m attaching two files for posterity.

If you are interested in the politics and science of climate change, read the attached pdf files.  

The first conveys some correspondence between the powers that be at the EPA, under the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, and Alan Carlin. 

The second is his draft report on climate change. 

• File Attachment: 20090706Endangerment_Comments_06-23-09.pdf (235 KB)
• File Attachment: 20090706endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf (4046 KB)

He asks the hard questions that those who believe in models over reality cannot answer.

As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO₂ hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made. The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view:

1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO₂levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO₂/AGW hypothesis.
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO₂ and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO₂.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO₂. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.