by Christine Hall
04 May 2011
Claims of Catastrophic
Warming Are Overwhelmingly Contradicted
By Real-World Data
The scientific hypotheses underlying global warming alarmism are
overwhelmingly contradicted by real-world data, and for that reason
economic studies on the alleged benefits of controlling greenhouse
gas emissions are baseless.
That’s the finding of a new
peer-reviewed report by a former EPA whistleblower.
Dr. Alan Carlin, now retired, was a career environmental
economist at EPA when CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) broke
the story of his negative report on the agency’s proposal to
regulate greenhouse gases in June, 2009. Dr. Carlin’s supervisor had
ordered him to keep quiet about the report and to stop working on
global warming issues.
EPA’s attempt to silence Dr. Carlin became a
highly-publicized embarrassment to the agency, given Administrator
Lisa Jackson’s supposed commitment to transparency.
Dr. Carlin’s new study,
A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of
Climate Change, is published in the
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
It finds that fossil fuel use has little impact on atmospheric CO2
Moreover, the claim that atmospheric CO2 has a strong
positive feedback effect on temperature is contradicted on several
grounds, ranging from low atmospheric sensitivity to volcanic
eruptions, to the lack of ocean heating and the absence of a
predicted tropical “hot spot.”
However, most economic analyses of greenhouse gas emission controls,
such as those being imposed by EPA, have been conducted with no
consideration of the questionable nature of the underlying science.
For that reason, according to Dr. Carlin,
the actual “economic
benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of
magnitude less” than what is claimed in those reports.
Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel, stated,
“One of the major
criticisms of Dr. Carlin’s EPA report was that it was not
peer-reviewed, even though peer-review was neither customary for
internal agency assessments, nor was it possible due to the time
constraints imposed on Dr. Carlin by the agency.
For that reason, we
are glad to see this expanded version of Dr. Carlin’s report now
appear as a peer-reviewed study.”
A year ago, CEI challenged the Administration’s decision to regulate
greenhouse gases, based upon the withholding of information from the
CEI asserted that the EPA,
“put under wraps and concealed” ….”a
significant internal critique of the EPA’s position” by a
They revealed to the public four
internal EPA emails that showed the agency deliberately skewed the
process by ordering Dr. Carlin not to reveal his findings.
Not only did the emails specifically direct Dr. Carlin not to
discuss or release his findings to anyone, but they spelled out the
reason why - because,
“your comments do not help the legal
or policy case for this decision.” (Al McGartland, PdD, Director
National Center for Environmental Economics, US EPA).
“Dr. Carlin’s study was barred from being circulated within EPA,
it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in
the docket of this proceeding,” claimed the CEI.
In his newly released study, Dr. Carlin
says that the reason that the economic benefits of reducing CO2
emissions may be considerably less than those estimated by most
economists is because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower
than assumed by
the United Nations.
“Feedback is negative rather than
positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions
on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than
long lasting,” he writes.
He also reported,
“The costs of CO2
emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated
because of technological and implementation problems recently
Attempts to decrease these costs by a greatly
expanded government funded research program to encourage
technological innovation are both expensive and may or may not
prove successful in reducing the technological problems.”
And, because of “very modest benefits,”
CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive
and “unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs.”
“The risk of catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not
currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.”
Read the full report: "A
Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of