“Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”- Barack Obama, March 8, 2009

Many concerned scientists are trying to identify and develop solutions that will reduce mankind's footprint of consumption in favor of more efficient and sustainable solutions. Others are simply trying to identify ways to predict climate change with greater accuracy to improve weather forecasting models. In either case, we applaud all efforts that will lead to the meaningful pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the dynamics of climate change and in the development of more sustainable solutions to future growth in a free market economy.

At the base of any major shift in mentality and associated awareness is a conscious mind. One that is objective and humbly seeks to understand without prejudice.

To date, there have been a number of serious abuses against scientists who have been critical of the theory that anthropogenic green house gases are the primary causes of climate change or global warming. While we are respectful of the work and considerable resources that have been provided towards those in favor of the theory, as scientists we remain skeptical of both the methodology employed in justification of and extent to which world governments should regulate CO2 emissions.

Any dogmatic practice that places theory as fact and suppresses evidence and research efforts to suggest otherwise is a far cry from justice or scientific achievement.

Comments To: Environmental Protection Agency

Our June 23, 2009 Comments to The Environmental Protection Agency Re: Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act1

Suppressed March 2009 Internal EPA Comments of Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson2

Link to executive summary

The Debate on Global Warming/Climate Change Throughout the last decade, the debate has moved beyond the question of the existence of global warming/climate change to understanding the nature, extent, and predictability of the global climatic events that we have and are now experiencing (Fig. 1, 4, and 7).

Fig. 1. El Nino 1997/98 dynamic global climate phenomenon.

Although considerable attention and resources have been dedicated to advocates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory, particularly those adherents who emphasize man's contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 (Anthropogenic contribution) being the causal agent, many fundamental questions about climate change remain unanswered. For example:

  • To what extent is the earth warming?
  • Has this phenomena occurred before?
  • In addition to man's possible contribution have we accounted for the possible natural drivers behind climate change (i.e., natural variability, hydrothermal heating, natural geophysical, solar events, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity, geo-magnetic jerks, and other natural events)?
  • Is the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases (GHG's) from natural sources or anthropogenic sources? If from both sources, what relative percentage is being contributed by each?
  • Is the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases an actual cause or merely a symptom of climate change?
  • Is the observed variation of natural heat release driving recorded global temperature trends or are man's greenhouse gases overpowering these natural variations?
  • What will be the long-term impact of climate change for life on Earth?
  • Can the anthropogenic based climate prediction models (IPCC and CCSP) reliably forecast real temperature trends and climate change? If not, why?
  • Is there a better natural driver predictor or group of natural predictors of climate change?

There are two main scientific schools within the climate change debate:

  1. The first school includes those who believe the current global warming and climate change we are experiencing is caused by increases in atmospheric anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse gases. This group subscribes to the hypothesis that greenhouse gases (namely CO2) when released into the atmosphere, due to their irradiative qualities (e.g. heat trapping qualities) act to warm the planet, e.g. Anthropogenic GHG Proponents of Climate Change.
  2. The second school includes those who believe that historic and climate change is a function of nature, itself, e.g. Natural Variability Proponents of Climate Change.

1 Our 6/23/09 Comments are essentially a duplicate of our 12/22/2008 Comments to EPA re: ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ON REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, and have been slightly revised/edited for this web publication.

2 Dr. Clarin's and Davidson's internal Comments Re: EPA proposed finding of Endangerment due to Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) suggests many of the very same conclusions as contained in our 12/22/08 comments and those we filed again 6/23/09 -- essentially that CO2 is not the driver of climate change and that there appears to be a natural driver that better explains climate change. Wall St. Journal

Other reporting of EPA's suppression of this document

Copyright © 2009 NCC.

- shop1 - shop2