But what if that is in fact the case?

All the more reason for a bureaucrat not to write it down in a memo. Sir Humphrey wouldn’t have.

Steve, you suggest that Carlin’s supervisor’s remarks were “injudicious” by implying that
he was bending EPA procedures in response to political will. But what if that is in fact the case? Are you suggesting he should have given a politically correct response?

It seems to me that Carlin’s position is surprisingly parallel to your own, namely that the EPA should not simply accept the findings of the IPCC in it’s endangerment finding, but should be making its own evaluation, including later information and approriate peer review. I had read your submittal before Carlin’s document was published, and I thought that his document supported your case for proper peer review before reaching an important endangerment finding. That some of the scientific issues he raises are different than those you would choose doesn’t alter that fact in my opinion.

I hope someone pursues the FOI request as you suggest.

First, it is straw man argument to claim that CA reader’s position consists of damning Jones’s motives for withholding data;

Beside the fact that Jones has already told us why. You’ll note a conspicuous absence of a direct response to that in any of Gary’s replies. He can’t without undermining his own argument.

Mark

Apparently CA is chock-full of mindreaders. You guys ought to be playing the stock market.

Your position consists of two fallacies.

First, it is straw man argument to claim that CA reader’s position consists of damning Jones’s motives for withholding data; in fact, CA readers are condemning the practice of withholding data, regardless of the motive for doing so.

Second, even if your straw man argument were true — that is, even if CA readers were improperly criticizing Jones’s motives — it would be pure non-sequitur to claim that such behavior by CA readers justifies Jones’ withholding of data.

In summary, the fallacious arguments you’ve advanced are transparent and lame attempts to rationalize the scientifically unforgivable practice of preventing others from testing one’s conclusions and assertions.

Scientifically, there’s an almost total disconnect between the Carlin paper and issues that have been raised here over the past few years. These are definitely not the criticisms of IPCC that I would have made.

They’re actually the ones that Pat Michaels made, almost verbatim, for example:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/19/why-the-epa-should-find-against-endangerment/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/14/slowdown-in-greenland/

Having said that, I thought that Carlin’s supervisor’s correspondence was injudicious. While IMO he could have given valid reasons for not proceeding with Carlin’s remarks, his actual comments give the impression that he was bending EPA procedures to political will. Perhaps this happens all the time, but the proffered reasons remain somewhat injudicious.

Procedurally, it is my understanding that EPA is obliged to have a “peer review record”; OMB guidelines encourage the publication of the peer review record for a highly influential scientific assessment. We know that there were 12 “expert reviewers”.

I would urge you and others to FOI the peer review record from EPA.

Scientifically, there’s an almost total disconnect between the Carlin paper and issues that have been raised here over the past few years. These are definitely not the criticisms of IPCC that I would have made.

Mark