Nearly eight centuries have passed since Roger Bacon enunciated what is generally known as the scientific method: observation of data, followed by a scientific hypothesis which attempts to explain that which has been observed, followed by experimentation to test the hypothesis and verification by other observers. For anyone who has observed science in practice, rather than simply in theory, one is inclined to apply to the scientific method the words of William Whately concerning virtue: "It is better honored in the breach than in the observance.

Consider the case of Dr. Alan Carlin, and the battle at the Environmental Protection Agency over human-induced climate change (aka “global warming”). An article about Dr. Carlin in the New York Times notes that he “had labored in obscurity in a little-known office at the Environmental Protection Agency since the Nixon administration.” All of that changed, however, when Dr. Carlin challenged climate change orthodoxy with a hastily-prepared 93-page report in March responding to a proposed EPA finding concerning humanity’s role in climate change. The haste, as Dr. Carlin noted in an email to his supervisor Al McGartland, was imposed by the need to respond on very short notice:

As you realize, it is impossible to fully refute a 15+ year effort costing tens of billions of dollars in less than 4 days, but I think that we have come remarkably close but may not have finished the job. ... It is unbelievable that John [Davidson] and I have been able to poke so many serious holes in the orthodox view in so short a time and with so little manpower. There is a reason for this; the orthodox view is more religion than science. Their “science” is more veneer than solid science.

Friends of Dr. Carlin allegedly leaked the critique and, within several months, the story of his allegedly suppressed report began to filter into the mainstream media. In a piece entitled “EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical of Global Warming,” CBSNews.com reported on Dr. Carlin’s story on June 26. According to the CBSNews.com story,

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "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 e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate-change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels."

The day following release of the CBSNews.com story, Dr. Carlin made his controversial report available through his personal website. As Dr. Carlin acknowledges in the online edition of his paper,

It is very important that readers of these comments understand that these comments were prepared under severe time constraints. The actual time available was approximately 4-5 working days. It was therefore impossible to observe normal scholarly standards or even to carefully proofread the comments. As a result there are undoubtedly numerous unresolved inconsistencies and other problems that would normally have been resolved with more normal deadlines. No effort has been made to resolve any possible substantive issues; only a few of the more evident non-substantive ones have been resolved in this version.

The September 24 New York Times article appears to be interested in making the Carlin problem “go away.” Thus the story contains the following ‘stunning’ revelations: "But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview."

One is left scratching one’s head and asking: That’s it? It’s hard to determine how Dr. Carlin’s "history" of “highly skeptical views” detracts from his 93 page report — but it certainly may help explain why he only had four days to comment on the official EPA finding. Again, presumably Dr. Carlin’s doctorate in economics in MIT is apparently supposed to delegitimize his views on climate change; but then, Dr. Carlin’s supervisor who is alleged to have suppressed his report, Dr. Al McGartland, “only” has a Ph.D. in economics as well. (Besides, this stunning revelation can be found by simply consulting Dr. Carlin’s staff page at the EPA website.) As for the “rushed and at times shoddy scholarship” in Carlin’s report: Carlin readily acknowledged this in his e-mail to McGartland on March 13, forwarding his report to his supervisor.

One is left wondering whether the “cap and trade” bill now stalled in the U.S. Senate is somehow connected to the sudden need for Dr. Carlin and his report to be deconstructed; just days before John M. Broder’s article for the New York Times cited above, another article by the same writer invoked on nine occasions the unwillingness of the Senate to take action on environmental legislation.

Are Dr. Carlin and his report causing problems for “cap and trade”? Yes, indeed.

As the Heritage Foundation posted on September 25:

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) attempted to offer several climate-related amendments, including one that would have forced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct an investigation into alleged suppression Dr. George [sic!] Carlin’s research. President Obama has been a ferocious critic of the politicizing scientific research “to advance predetermined ideological agendas.” Such an investigation would seem to be a non-partisan, non-ideological issue.
However, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) blocked Barrasso’s amendment, claiming her objection “has nothing to do with the distinguished Senator, whom I respect enormously. It does have something to do with putting climate change in this bill.” Putting “climate change” in the bill? The committee report, which she submitted, uses the word “climate” 34 separate times.

Despite the apparent inability of the Heritage Foundation to discern the difference between a living EPA research analyst and a dead stand-up comedian, the observation of Dr. Carlin’s status as political-hot-potato is fundamentally correct.

Welcome to the real scientific method, where ideology and political agendas can, and often do, swamp the facts, and where the man who is not prepared to “go with the flow” better expect to get hit by a wave.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church. Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments