"Suppressed" Climate Report Cribbed From Patrick Michaels?

authordefault
on

The folks at Fox News were fuming this week that the EPA apparently suppressed an internal โ€œscientific reportโ€ that questioned the rational for listing CO2 as a pollutant under the Clear Airย Act.

The report, however, is neither secret norย scientific.

Itโ€™s not secret because it has been posted on the websites of the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and several other think tanks with a record of using any excuse to deny climate change science. The full file is available here.

The person listed as the author of the report, Alan Carlin, is not a scientist, but an economist who works for National Center for Environmental Economics. But Carlin also had some help.

Several years ago, Ken Gregory of the Astroturf group Friends of Science compiled an eye-glazing compendium of pseudo science questioning climate change. Real Climate points out that Carlin has imported sections of this verbatim, crediting Gregory 20 times in the report.

Carlin also referenced Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer, a politician and a lapsed scientist, both of them darlings of the denialย industry.

But what about un-referenced sources? Plugging Carlinโ€™s report into Plagiarism Checker.com revealed a whole series of unreferenced sections lifted verbatim from one of the deans of the denial industry, Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.

Have a look: Page 79 of Carlinโ€™s PDFย states:

โ€œFor instance, despite the overall rise in U.S. and global average temperatures for the past 30 years, U.S. crop yields have increased (Figure 3-1), the populationโ€™s sensitivity to extreme heat has decreased (Figure 3-2), and our general air quality has improved (Figure 3-3). Further, there has been no long-term increase in weather-related property damage once changes in inflation, population size, and population wealth are accounted for (an essential step in any temporal comparison). All of these trends are in the opposite sense from those described in the EPAโ€™s Endangerment TSD.โ€

Small world. It seems that a November 19th op-ed piece on Michaelโ€™s website entitled โ€œWhy the EPA should find against Endangermentโ€ has exactly the same wording and exactly the same graphs. In fact, the entire section 3 of Carlinโ€™s report seems to be a very thin re-write of the anti-EPA piece from lastย November.

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence, particularly if it involves obviously biased sources. It is therefore ironic that Carlinโ€™s unsolicited 85 page report, on a subject well outside his area of expertise, is devoted to criticizing the scientific community for their shoddy work.

This week an indignant Senator James Inhofe demanded an inquiry into this strange report. Maybe thatโ€™s not such a bad idea. It might be interesting to find out who else Carlin cribbed and who paid for the report.

Recently revealed tax documents show that Michaelsโ€™ consulting firm was paid $242,900 by the Cato Institute since April 2006, during which year Cato Ihad accepted $612,000 from 26 corporate supporters including ExxonMobil, General Motors and the American Petroleum Institute.

Since neither Carlin nor Gregory are climate scientists, what do active climate researchers think of the โ€œsuppressedโ€ report? Dr. Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies provides an amusing evisceration here, pointing out the numerous non-peer reviewed and discredited sources that have loomed into public view yetย again.

The blog for Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world also dismissed this report out of hand, calling it โ€œrehash of old, scientifically dubious arguments.โ€

Hardly a bombshell, but you would never know that watching the hyperbolic media coverage. Have a look at this remarkable puff piece from Fox News that interviews the aggrieved Carlinย himself.

Perhaps the next time Carlin is in the presence of the media, someone should ask him why his name is on a report that instead seems to be largely written by well-known members of the denial industry.ย 

I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions, but it does seem odd that this dubious story based on dubious sources appears in high media rotation just as the Waxman-Markey bill moves to theย Senate.

Authorโ€™s note: One thing about muckraking on so-called โ€œclimate skepticsโ€ – you always seem to find something stinky, unethical or dishonest. I love being the first to drag it up but have since learned that in this case I wasnโ€™t. The good folks at Deep Climate.org first reported the apparent plagiarism from Patrick Michaelsโ€™ website last week and went further. I urge members of the media review this material and tell the other side of this importantย story.

Related Posts

on

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.
on

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.
Opinion
on

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.
on

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.