Many news outlets are reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming. While this has conspiracy theorists all a twitter, the truly shocking thing is the content of that report. The executive summary contains a list of items contradicting claim after claim put forth by the IPCC and global warming alarmists. The contents are nothing short of incendiary.

A few weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director, Al McGartland, 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.” In an email to the researcher primarily responsible for the report he added, “the administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.” In other words, if you don't agree with the official administration line shut up. While many news outlets covered the suppression of the report, few covered the contents—we have read the report and find the contents the more important story.

Why all the fuss over a dry EPA technical support document (TSD)? The author first notes that: “The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in areas that deserve careful attention in this draft.” Then the report goes on to list specific problems with the IPCC driven interpretation of climate change. Judge for yourself by the following list of statements from the executive summary:

• Global temperatures have declined—extending the current downtrend to ll years with a particularly rapid decline in 2007-8; in addition, the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] went negative in September, 2007 and the AMO [Atlantic multidecadal Oscillation] in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time atmospheric CO₂ levels have continued to increase and CO₂ emissions have accelerated.
  
  
• The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the past.
  
  
• The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes.
  
  
• One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft TSD does not reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as a result of the recession. In fact, the topic is not even discussed to our knowledge.
  
  
• A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
  
  
• A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their research suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.
  
  

They summarize the report's conclusions this way: “These six developments alone should greatly influence any assessment of ‘vulnerability, risk, and impacts' of climate change within the U.S. But these are just a few of the new developments since 2006.” Then the report observes that not only is the science of the TSD out-of-date but there are a number of other disturbing inconsistencies between the temperature and other scientific data and the GHG/CO2 hypothesis. All of these inconsistencies would need to be carefully explained for the draft TSD to be credible. Despite the complexity of the climate system the following conclusions appear to be well supported by the available data:

• (A) By far the best single explanation for global temperature fluctuations is variations in the PDO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/AMO appear to operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not really explained in the draft TSD but needs to be, or, at the very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why OAR believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they are much more unimportant than we believe them to be.
  
  
• (B) There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global. temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really explored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar variationsmay be misattributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
  
  
• (C) Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
  
  
• (D) The surface measurements (HADCRUT) are more ambiguous than the satellite measurements in that the increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the heat island effect or by the increase in GHG levels. However, since no such increase is shown in the satellite record it appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect are the most likely cause. If so, the increases may have little to do with GHGs and everything to do with the rapid urbanization during the period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG levels during these periods it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have much effect on measured surface temperatures either. These points need to be very carefully and fully discussed in the draft TSD if it is be scientifically credible.
  
  
• (E) Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act. The surface record is more equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed, which would require substantial revision of the Draft TSD.
  
  
• (F) There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998 temperature peak which appears on both the satellite and surface temperature records. This possibility needs to be fully explained and discussed in the Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many other inconsistencies referenced in these comments are adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute all or even any of what warming has occurred to changes in GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.
  
  

These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSD.

Note that these EPA researchers are not dyed-in-the-wool climate change deniers. They were just worried that, if their conclusions were based on outside data and proved to be incorrect, the EPA would be blamed for the errors. In fact, the preface of the report seems to stress that they simply want to be cautious and not jump to conclusions.

As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject. We believe that this review should start immediately and be a continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility that EPA may be called upon to implement regulations designed to reduce global warming. The science has and undoubtedly will continue to change and EPA must have the capability of keeping abreast of these changes if it is to successfully discharge its responsibilities. The Draft TSD suggests to us that we do not yet have that capability or that we have not used what we have. We would be happy to work with and assist anyone who might want to undertake such a serious review of the science.

That does not sound like the irrational ranting of wild eyed “global warming deniers.” It sounds more like a group of conscientious scientists who wish to review the latest evidence before making a judgment that could adversely impact large portions of the US economy. Instead of being commended for taking a cautious approach, the lead author was reprimanded by his supervisor. The full document PDF can be found here.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview 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.” After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is basing its new enforcement policies on, Carlin concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. “My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide),” he said. “There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down.”

Add to the suppression of Carlin's report the banning of Canadian polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor from a conference in Copenhagen and a worrying trend begins to emerge. Dr Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and for the Canadian government. We quoted him in The Resilient Earth as insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are actually growing. Since pictures of supposedly endangered polar bears are a prime bit of propaganda for the global warming crowd, Dr. Taylor is now persona non grata in climate change circles.

Leave us alone, we're doing fine.

The formerly impregnable bastion that was anthropogenic global warming theory is beginning to crumble, and it is not only because of attacks from external critics. It is from those within the inner circle, from the EPA—not a safe haven for anti-green types—that doubts are being raised about the accuracy of the IPCC's claims of impending disaster. This EPA report shows that even green leaning scientists are given pause by the tsunami of contradictory data—at least those scientists who remember their training and retain a shred of integrity.

But while the world is distracted by North Korean misbehavior and the Iranian government's crackdown on its own protesting citizens, global warming alarmists are making their move. Just like the discredited cabal in Iran, pro-IPCC forces are trying to suppress the growing voice of global warming dissent. Their threat is clear, speak out in a way that contradicts the climate change party line and you will find yourself banned from conferences, shunned by your colleagues and possibly out of work. The global warming lobby must be growing desperate indeed.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.