Pulling out of the faulty Paris climate accord, which was steeped in political and scientific gyrations, was necessary for the U.S.
Meanwhile, at the nation’s capital, former and current top level Environmental Protection Agency officials are stressed out about politics influencing scientific practice at the EPA.
In Washington, D.C. earlier in May, at a conference of the Health Effects Institute–an organization funded by the EPA and motor vehicle industry–a former Obama EPA science policy adviser, along with a senior EPA research staffer, both defended the EPA’s present climate research program. Both rightly regard politics as being a threat to scientific practice; both were seemingly anxious about the incoming Administration’s lack of faith in consensus climate science.
Stress over presidential politics’ lean on climate science is not new. Several years ago, Dr. Alan Carlin, now a retired EPA senior analyst, concerned about politically-influenced science, had publicly challenged the Obama EPA’s bias on climate change. The difference is that Carlin was resisting the politically correct Obama administration.
Carlin, with an undergraduate degree in physics from Caltech bolstered by a doctorate in economics from MIT, had been at the EPA almost from its inception in 1970. In early 2009, after submitting serious negative comments on the EPA’s draft technical support document for the endangerment finding on the adverse effects of rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, Carlin had been maligned by the EPA powers-that-be for challenging the Obama administration’s poor economics and science represented in these findings.
In his 2015 book, Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy (Stairway Press), Carlin asserts that even if EPA’s current effort to control carbon-dioxide emissions are successful, “it will not change the climate or extreme weather in any measurable way even though Obama has proclaimed it will. It will simply increase the rates paid for less reliable energy, with lower-income Americans bearing most of the burden along with the slow recovery of the U.S. economy.”
No surprise that Carlin is not a big fan of consensus climate science. Alternatively, it seems that one of the Obama administration’s tactics for enforcing “consensus” opinion on climate change was to establish a post at the EPA for a Scientific Integrity Official. The former president ostensibly created that position as part of his effort to “restore science to its rightful place”.