Home » Science » “Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty”

“Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty”

The suppression of Alan Carlin’s report arguing against anthropogenic global warming serves as a warning to anyone who would facilely contend that science is self-correcting. Science by itself is not self-correcting. It only becomes self-correcting when scientists and outsiders refuse to let dogmatists who pretend to scientific objectivity monopolize the discussion. Science is not about consensus. It is about informed dissent. Indeed, progress in science is only possible through informed consent. Those who suppressed Carlin’s report should read John Stuart Mill, who stressed the need for all sides in a debate to be fairly represented. This applies to the debate over design and Darwinism as well.

SOURCE: GO HERE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

18 Responses to “Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty”

  1. Published by CEI:

    “The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government. We believe that the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention. Since it was founded by Fred L. Smith, Jr. in 1984, CEI has grown to a team of over 40 policy experts and staff.”

  2. Interesting. Will have to take a look at the report.

  3. 3

    CEI receives a lot of funding from Exxon to spread anti-global warming stuff, but they won’t reveal much about their funding — their commitment to transparency is a bit suspect.

    Gavin A. Schmidt at Real Climate has a different take on this alleged suppression. Oh, and for the sake of transparency:

    RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

  4. CEI receives a lot of funding from Exxon to spread anti-global warming stuff, but they won’t reveal much about their funding…

    How very strange that they won’t reveal much about their funding, yet freely admit to receiving a lot of funding from Exxon to spread anti-global warming stuff. You’d think that if they were keeping secrets that’d be at the top of their list, wouldn’t you?

  5. 5

    Phineas, CEI doesn’t reveal its corporate funding. Investigative journalism has ferreted some out, but the precise numbers are difficult to come by. In fact, they may have stopped receiving funding from Exxon more recently (2008). From 1998 through 2005 they received more than $2 million.

  6. I don’t care about funding, motives, or religious convictions, I care about evidence and logic.

    This seems to have been lost in the discussion about global warming and the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms to produce what is observed in nature.

    They are both junk pseudo-science, wrapped in an ever-growing cloud of obfuscation, excuses, redefinitions, predictions that can’t be verified until we are all dead and gone, and an entire host of unverifiable stories and speculations.

    This is the antithesis of science and scientific investigation, yet those who point out these obvious attempts to eviscerate the scientific method and scientific reasoning are labeled enemies of science.

    The next thing you know, people will start calling evil good, and good evil.

    God help us.

  7. David Kellog

    CEI receives a lot of funding from Exxon to spread anti-global warming stuff, but they won’t reveal much about their funding — their commitment to transparency is a bit suspect.

    That is the kind of “poison the well” argument that only appeals to people who are either too stupid or too lazy to examine the evidence and hear the arguments presented.

    AGW is complete garbage and so is Al Gore.

  8. Gil:

    I don’t care about funding, motives, or religious convictions, I care about evidence and logic.

    Unfortunately funding and religious convictions provide ample motives for people to distort evidence and employ broken logic. Religious convictions in particular are notoriously impervious to evidence. (That’s why they are called convictions)

    They are both junk pseudo-science, wrapped in an ever-growing cloud of obfuscation, excuses, redefinitions, predictions that can’t be verified until we are all dead and gone, and an entire host of unverifiable stories and speculations.

    So why don’t you present us with a logical argument backed up by evidence?

    … those who point out these obvious attempts to eviscerate the scientific method and scientific reasoning are labeled enemies of science.

    No they are usually labelled Materialist Evolutionist Darwinists and are blamed for anything that happens to be wrong with the world that the all knowing and loving god created.

    God help us.

    God wants you to stop complaining and begging for its help and start taking responsibility for the damage we are doing to the world.

  9. Hi all,

    Just my two pence…

    I see people using ‘climate change’ to encourage individuals and organizations to use our resources more efficiently and with less waste and by-products…

    I also see fundamentalist (not acusing anyone here) christians denying said climate change ’cause god gave us all this stuff to use, and we trust him, not science’. (i may be paraphrasing a bit, but you get the gist).

    What is the issue? Clearly, our planet is running out of oil, and we have the ability to make efforts to use our planet more responsably, so why not just get on with doing what we can to make a different? Even ff the planet is warming on it’s own, we are still running out of oil, and debating climate change is redirecting from the problem of scarce resources

    Extracting oil is getting more expensive because of the extreme measures needed to do so (the deeper you drill, the more cost involved), and surface mining for bitumen has environmental costs AND huge monetary costs, so the price of petrol is rising as evidence of our scarce resources.

    Why are people fighting the research about climate change? Would you prefer if we focused on the cost the earth is paying for mankind’s presence? and forget everything is getting hotter? I’m asking cause I’m like to hear others opinions.

    Love you all.

  10. God wants you to stop complaining and begging for its help and start taking responsibility for the damage we are doing to the world.

    Thats da point. But when dudes come and say, that CO2 does damage by Global Warming, but everyone can go on wikipedia and find out that Water Wapor is much more dangerous and effective “global-warming gas”, and that Global Warming is caused by Sun, not by CO2, then how actually you suggest to do what you propose?

    We say, let’s clean the World, and what does environmentalists do – start to complain about too much plant food being in air!

    You can get 25million dollar right now! See

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00693.html


    LONDON, Feb. 9 — British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, offered a $25 million prize Friday to anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth’s atmosphere.

    I can hint you!

    Plant trees… MENY MENY Trees. Do some calculation, how much trees have to be planted and may be planted for 25million dollars!

    Trees and plants are natural CO2 removal device. And it is not simple CO2 removal device, it is O2 production device. It produces meny great things! So… I guess next time you post, you will be millionaire allready!

  11. 11

    That is the kind of “poison the well” argument that only appeals to people who are either too stupid or too lazy to examine the evidence and hear the arguments presented.

    AGW is complete garbage and so is Al Gore.

    I heart you too Jehu!
    XOXOXO

    Why don’t you read the rebuttal I posted by Gavin Schmidt (an actual climate scientist!), or the revealing interview that the “suppressed” author Carlin gave gave to Talking Points Memo? The fable of scientific suppression gets less credible the longer you look at it.

  12. Why don’t you read the rebuttal I posted by Gavin Schmidt (an actual climate scientist!)

    Everyone knows that these ‘experts’ like climate scientists and biologists don’t really know anything and that the ‘notexperts’ like Carlin are the ones who are the real experts ;)

  13. “That is the kind of “poison the well” argument that only appeals to people who are either too stupid or too lazy to examine the evidence and hear the arguments presented. ”

    I disagree completely. Understanding a person’s motives, or whether there are existing pre-suppositions, or any confirmation bias at work, is a key part of critical thinking. I personally believe that many of the ID supporters who write here are influenced (knowingly or otherwise) by their particular religious convictions in how they view ID and evolution. I take that into account when evaluating what they say. And yes, of course I have my own presuppositions to deal with, but the key is to try and be aware of them and challenge them at every step.

  14. 14

    Administrators, This following video may be worth making a thread on:

    Stephen Meyer is interviewed about Signature in the Cell. i.e. the “information problem” in DNA. – video
    http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnne.....f?aid=8497

  15. 15
    CannuckianYankee

    Excession,

    “Unfortunately funding and religious convictions provide ample motives for people to distort evidence and employ broken logic. Religious convictions in particular are notoriously impervious to evidence.”

    I don’t believe that Gore and his supporters have made the case for the expensive, life altering, poverty creating changes they demand for global warming to be alleviated. If Gore refuses to make such changes in his own lifestyle, why should he expect that anyone else would?

    I think Shazard has an excellent idea – let’s just plant a bunch of trees, and let them consume the CO2.

    The enviro-nazi scheme is nothing but a neo liberal “make me look good cause” similar to the over-population scare or the new ice age scare of the 70s. It’s a misuse of science for political ends. It makes for nice picture-taking and speculating in NatGeo and other publications, and that’s how it’s sold. And of course, who can forget the images of polar bears clinging desperately to small icebergs. This isn’t science, but scifi-sentimentalism. It gets people elected, and that’s the whole point. When it finally phazes out – and we have a new “global concern,” people will begin to see what an unnecessary fuss we made.

  16. Excession (whatever that means):

    Unfortunately funding and religious convictions provide ample motives for people to distort evidence and employ broken logic. Religious convictions in particular are notoriously impervious to evidence.

    Thank you for making my point. What you fail to recognize is that you are the religious fanatic who is incapable of following the evidence where it leads.

    Massive government funding exclusively supports Darwinian storytelling despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that the proposed mechanism is incapable of producing the observed biological phenomena.

    This is religious zealotry, universally impervious to reason and logic even to this day, that has a multi-thousand-year pedigree. It is pagan nature worship.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  17. In Climate Change Reconsidered, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) presents the scientific data which demonstrates the global warming alarmists are the modern era’s version of “chicken little”.

    In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

    The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

    The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

    The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.

  18. 18
    CannuckianYankee

    Joseph,

    Do any or all the scientists in the NIPCC work for, or receive funding from Exxon?

    David Kellog: “CEI receives a lot of funding from Exxon to spread anti-global warming stuff, but they won’t reveal much about their funding — their commitment to transparency is a bit suspect.”

    Well, even if they all did, I would be more inclined to accept their research than that of the beaurocrats from the UN.

Leave a Reply