More great reporting, Zach.

Why is Carlin, reportedly "around 71" still working full time at the EPA? I am approaching my sixtieth decade myself and certainly don't want to imply that septuagenarians have nothing to offer. However, aren't there retirement guidelines for federal agencies?

The emails reported, that he was told to basically, "back off" off on a topic, climatology, he is absolutely NOT equally qualified due to his BA in Physics from the 1960s seem quite reasonable. If I was his boss, he certainly would have received a similar email from me.

KeithL - You're near your sixtieth decade? Congratulations! Heard from Vlad the Impaler lately?

Cy Guy -- Here's Carlin on Fox yesterday explaining why, in his view, warming isn't happening. I think that counts as a climate change skeptic.

The Atlantic mag has an interesting article on one possible human-powered mitigation of global warming:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering

Speaking of 600-year-old men, why should I care about what Jack Welch and his bimbo trophy wife have to say about anything? "It's everybody's business"? Like the details of their affair?

What I don't get about deniers is the basic science isn't terribly hard. Unless they deny the greenhouse effect exists, then it stands to reason that if you increase emissions of greenhouse gases, you'll get more greenhouse effect. That simple statement doesn't tell you what the effect of increased temperature will be, we certainly know that the effects of pollution aren't good.

Do they deny the greenhouse effect? Do they deny the increase in greenhouse gases? If not, there's no basis for denial in general. Dispute specific predictions, and whether specific phenomena are caused by global warming, fine, but anthropogenic global warming can't be reasonably disputed.

The Repugs have gone so far off the tracks that the tracks are no longer in view. Who cares what they say, what "experts" they invent, or what their policy preferences are? They should be ignored until they at least begin to sniff reality.

OK, the red-faced 600 year old man has a few observations, based on my vast span of existence. Most of the "suggestions" I've heard for essentially, terraforming Planet Earth, using ash or acid clouds, "seeding" the oceans with iron to promote plankton blooms or even "shooting billions of "frisbees" into space to shade the Earth share one, common problem. They tend to be advanced by amateur enthusiasts or business entrepreneurs, as in the case of iron plankton, who are ready to enthusiastically plunge ahead without a serious understanding of possible unintended consequences.

Al Carlin certainly seems to be of this persuasion. The problem is that no one has a good idea of the consequences of their advocacy. Clouds of sulphur (guaranteed to form sulphuric acid) is among the most ludicrous. The oceans are becoming dangerously acidified by carbonic acid already. The rate at which the worlds' oceans, a very finite resource, can absorb CO2 is already slowing. Shading the Earth with orbiting sunscreens ignores the fact that solar wind would inevitably blow them away at an unknown rate. Creating huge new cloud belts would arguably, have a lot more effect on wind and storm patterns than a million butterflies flapping their wings in China.

We simply don't have enough understanding to pursue any of these, several times cheaper alternatives to reducing CO2 output. That they may be written about in magazines does not make them plausible. I, personally believe we're WAY past the tipping point of destructive warming. In addition to STOP DIGGING THE HOLE we've produced in the last century, we DO need to find ways to remove carbon and methane and other gasses from the atmosphere. Whether it's a mechanical or biological process, that seems to be the only way to mitigate our mistakes without danger of even greater catastrophe. We can probably find ways to safely store the 100 million years worth of ancient, once sequestered carbon we've released. We would be fools indeed to tinker with the planet's entire ecosphere because we read about it in a "study" or a magazine somewhere. Back to the original article, Al needs to retire so he can work on saving the planet on his own dime. He should not be able to claim somehow, to be an EPA researcher about anything to do with climatology.

Going to an economist about global warming analysis is like asking an accountant to provide and evaluate your cardio stress test.

Even IF one gives Carlin's physics degree full credibility, it is not what he has been doing full-time these past few decades. He's an expert by these standars only.

If:

"Ex" = has been, former spouse.

and

"Spurt" = Drip under pressure

Then:

Ex + Spurt = Expert

He's nothing but a has been and a drip under pressure.

Looks like Carlin might be playing the "over the last year or two" game....but not long term:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

The *great* thing about Inhofe's demand for a criminal investigation is that it doesn't really matter whether the investigation ever happens or not, because if it never happens then the right can point fingers and claim political interference by the DEMs stopped the investigation. Similarly, if the investigation takes place and finds no wrongdoing on the part of the EPA they can claim political bias. Ain't conspiracy theories great? You get to eat your cake and throw it too!

This guy shouldn't be attacked for either being, old, not having a degree. His ideas should be attacked for lack of intellectual rigor and misleading cherry picking of the data. I think the EPA was right in asking him not to get involved in the internal AGW discussions because they looked at his work saw how full of holes it was and decided that it was a waste of time reading anything more from him when they could be reading things written by people with actual expertise on the subject. Expertise not based on some degree they got or position they hold but based on the quality of the analysis they bring to bear on the data.

This guy gains prominence based on his position in the EPA but lost influence based on the lack of quality analysis.

How many of the critics here have actually read the man's work? It is unfortunate that so many would disparage the man because of his age, his education, etc. without actually reading what he has to say. But that seems to be a common approach among those who say there is no scientific debate about anthropogenic global warming. It will be interesting to see how long the consensus will survive if we have another ten years of global cooling while CO2 continues to increase. It is surprising how many advocates refuse to consider that they might, possibly, be mistaken. How accurate have the climate models been in their predictions? This is one of the several questions that Mr. Carlin asks, and offers suggestions on, in his paper.

tpinlb wrote: "How many of the critics here have actually read the man's work?"

I have read it. It isn't "work". It is garbage. It is nothing but ExxonMobil-funded lies and pseudo-scientific sophistry that he cut-and-pasted verbatim from ideologically-driven denialist websites, without attribution.

tpinlb wrote: "It is unfortunate that so many would disparage the man because of his age, his education, etc. without actually reading what he has to say."

His age is not relevant. His education is relevant, because it shows that he has no actual knowledge of the climate science issues that his memo addressed.

tpinlb wrote: "It will be interesting to see how long the consensus will survive if we have another ten years of global cooling while CO2 continues to increase."

We haven't had "ten years of global cooling". That's a lie. The last decade was the hottest ever recorded.

Like Carlin himself, you are utterly ignorant of the actual science and you are merely regurgitating the scripted talking points that ExxonMobil pays Rush Limbaugh to spoon-feed to weak-minded, ignorant dupes.

The original article suggests that a faction of conservative Republicans are standing on the public soapbox declaring that Dr. Carlin's anti-global warming opinions have been oppressed by EPA officials.

I have not yet seen any bona fide suggestion in the media that current EPA management is preventing Dr Carlin from publishing his works, or any other EPA employee from publishing theirs.

Dr. Carlin appears to have always had the opportunity to publish in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. I believe the EPA wants employees to publish. If your paper makes it into Nature, that's an achievement.

To get there you must do the research and write the paper. Then the paper must be reviewed. If it passes the review process, and if it is chosen for publication, once it is published, the paper is read by many hundreds of discerning scientists. Some of these readers make comments, review the work, and attempt to replicate findings. An excellent paper will advance our understanding.

Writing papers for peer-reviewed journals sure as heck isn't easy, but very rewarding for people who contribute to the science.

The works in question by Dr. Carlin may not have been intended for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and in fact may not have been ready for critical public review or even casual EPA review.

Part of the problem with the jouncing of the subject of global warming and climate change in the media is that peer-reviewed science journals aren't part of the usual circuit for those who dip their toes into the media. The media echos whatever anyone says, and if they're an elected official or pundit, what they say will be echoed much louder to a bigger audience.

Unfortunately, the media doesn't appear to know how to critically read scientific works like peer-reviewed papers. Heck, the general public doesn't even know where to find these things, much less read them, understand them, review them, and replicate their findings.

There are legitimate problems out there, in data and in conclusions, but the stuff being complained about through the media in this case doesn't even come close to a bona fide issue with respect to human effects on local and regional environment, effects of the calm sun, ozone depletion recovery,...and I think the reason is because some politicians are trying to get people to listen to them by popular means they think is available to them. The media.

Their audience doesn't read peer-reviewed journals. Not very many people do. So hair-splitting findings in papers aren't going to be very interesting. But management restricting an economist from publishing a paper! That may get some traction!

Why? Do they think their audience only cares about the short and medium term effects on their jobs and health? Is that all they care about?

Are these people gaining traction? Probably.

The science has to become more real for people who aren't scientists, so that they have a generally better understanding of Dr. Carlin's situation and can look at the whole situation with a more critical eye and comprehending mind.

I was on this issue last weekend, noting not only his lack of credentials, but his attempts to make everything susceptible to cost-benefit analysis, which only looks at short-term costs, of course, but also noting the extremely risky solution he proposed if, in his mind, global warming ever did turn out to be real.