1. worldnet daily is miserable 2. an economist is not unqualified to draw conclusions about global warming. that is exactly who we need thinking about it. the whole issue is about economic damage. do we get made poorer and sadder from rising temperatures and seal levels or whatever, or the measures that may or not prevent those things from happeneing. all the worlds problem are about recource management, where we direct our energy and capital. everytime somebody has the audacity to ask which problems are worth investment, the response is crying and anthropomorphization of precious earth, as if people are not a concern at all.
True if it were an economic conclusion and part of his job. But an economist is unqualified to challenge the scientific conclusions of his agency which is full of distinguished environmental scientists doing their job properly. Look, this guy has a job to do economics but he wants do do some other job that he is unqualified for and his boss told him no and go back to your own work. This happens all over and all the time in research science with its many defined disciplines. To properly challenge inside or outside of your discipline, you have to establish some credentials by getting your objections published in refereed scientific journals. That means being able to back up your claims publicly to all of the exerts in the field. He has not done this. Now and then a patent clerk discovers Relativity. But he must prove his thesis scientifically, get the work reviewed and published, and it must withstand scientific scrutiny. Einstein did this. This guy Carlin did not. That is only part of the issue, and a consequential part at that.
Slashdot News Story | EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming "'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'" "not a scientist"? a degree in physics from caltech seems like a decent qualification.the guy's report: "warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." i mean, when you are considering the economic impact of decisions based on science, why would you ask a guy who has degrees in both, from the best possible schools, and years and years of experience? who is this guy to think a doctorate in economics from MIT and 38 years of working for the EPA makes him qualified? this guy has been writing about "about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing. " "the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists" E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming | Politics and Law - CNET News under barack obama the government will be open and wonderful. "Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic."
A BS in physics does not make him a climatologist. His PhD and his career body of work has been in economics. His career body of work in economics is impressive. His work in physics apparently did not extend past his undergraduate degree. His work in climatology is essentially non-existent, with no papers published in climatological journals. Obviously, a degree in physics and another in economics doesn't make him a climatologist. That's fine, but he was challenging his agencies climatologists, not his agencies economists. He has a boss and a job. When you ignore your boss, lack proper credentials, and don't do your job, there are consequences. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide). There may be in the future." -- Alan Carlin From the EPA: “Several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.” Grow up, mahtin, and maybe you'll be taken more seriously.
When it comes to Global Warming, one thing has definitely been proven...certain people are guaranteed to profit from fear.
i wasa critical of this story at first, coming from worldnet daily. but now it is being picked up all over the place, even by the new york times: "Carlin is a senior operations research analyst who has worked in EPA's economics office since 1983. He has a doctorate in economics and a bachelor's degree in physics. He specializes in cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change control, EPA said" mr carlin, red wants me to tell you that you are unqualified. Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate 'Endangerment' Proposal - NYTimes.com isnt the science relevant, not whether the conclusions help a legal case?
Yet his draft internal memo is not addressing the economics of global climate change control. It is attempting to address the climatological evidence and scientific basis behind EPA's policy on global warming. The EPA scientists support the IPCC and consensus of global experts in climatology. He's out of his speciality here, he has not gotten these ideas published in a refereed scientific journal, he has not even gotten them past his own agency's editors, but he has now managed to get them published in the right wing media. Carlin reaches six main conclusions in his abstract, lettered A-B (pages iv-v). But his supporting evidence in the body of the report are inconclusive and subject to challenge. All six are dismissing climatological scientific conclusions, not "cost-benefit analysis and the economics of global climate change". Scientific relevance is exactly what I'm talking about when when an economist or a waiter dismisses the worlds consensus of climatological experts on a matter of climatology. There is a scientifically proper way of doing this, but Carlin has not done so. He's garnering media support, not scientific support. In fact, give this story a week and let's see what response he gets from the climatology community.
