Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Having taken Watts down, Sinclair takes on EPA’s Alan Carlin in his latest Crock of the Week video

By Joe Romm

"Having taken Watts down, Sinclair takes on EPA’s Alan Carlin in his latest Crock of the Week video"

Share:

google plus icon

Related Posts:

‹ South Korea, a ‘developing’ country, embraces 2020 emissions cap, with important implications for a global deal in Copenhagen

Newsweeks Science Editor explains why climate change is “even worse than we feared” and how “a consensus has developed during IPY that the Greenland ice sheet will disappear.” ›

9 Responses to Having taken Watts down, Sinclair takes on EPA’s Alan Carlin in his latest Crock of the Week video

  1. pete best says:

    You can always count on Fox News, Jon Stewart is always dissing them and it would be quite good if he covered this story. Two videos to show and plenty of right wing ulta conservative nonsense to diss.

    Great website and article.

  2. Lou Grinzo says:

    Having just watched the video, all I can say is, “Wow”.

  3. Mike#22 says:

    CDCW is a paragon of precision and honesty.

  4. glen says:

    The Washington Post has more information on Bonner & Associates and their fraudulent letters
    Reference: Aug 3rd post by JR.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402223.html?nav=hcmodule

  5. Jason says:

    I wasn’t able to make it past the part where they say that Dr. Carlin (who has a BS in physics from Caltech and a PhD in economics from MIT) is “not a scientist”.

    Is Joe Romm no longer considered a scientist? What about the head of the IPCC?

    You can’t effectively accuse somebody else of distorting the truth when you lead off with a huge distortion yourself. If there is something in the video worthy of “Wow”, I’ll wait for it to be disclosed by somebody who doesn’t impeach their own credibility before telling me about it.

    Certainly Carlin’s contribution could have been attacked effectively WITHOUT resorting to lies.

    [JR: Uhh, sorry but a Ph.D. in economics doesn't make one a scientist. And a B.S. certainly doesn't. Whether my Ph.D. in physics does, well, I think most objective observers would say yes, but not everyone agrees. The head of the IPCC is not a scientist.]

  6. Rick Covert says:

    Note to self. Must watch Climate Crock religiously every week.

  7. Paul K says:

    Excellent overview of the propaganda attack orchestrated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and using Dr. Carlin’s patched together “report” of denier talking points. The whole affair seems to be closely coordinated and orchestrated, to mis-lead as many people as possible. The conclusion one can draw from this sorry story, is many of the pillars of the denier community will stoop at nothing to denigrate climate scientists and the science research organizations. Worse, these key deniers believe they can play the majority of the people for chumps, and feed them nonsensical information decorated as the “truth”.

    Jason at August 5 at 2:18 pm: For the news reporters to pass off Dr. Carlin as a “scientist”, with the implication that he is knowledgeable and working on climate science, is a huge journalistic mistake. They are using the “appeal to authority” argument, but in this case the authority wasn’t a real authority on the issue.

    This would be a blunder by any reputable news organization; obviously the news media responsible for this horrible reporting are as guilty of mis-leading the public.

    In the words of Obi-wan the Jedi master, “Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or he who follows the fool?”

  8. Paul K says:

    This brings up another question for Jason, how do you feel qualified to judge and comment on a video you didn’t see?

    I comment on denier sites or in response to poor news reports from time to time, usually selecting one post or article to discuss, because I don’t have the time to address the entire stream of erroneous reporting. But I read the material before I comment. I have read the Carlin report, and the analysis of where the material was sourced at Deep Climate:
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/03/more-heavy-lifting-from-the-suppressed-alan-carlin/

    At least I read about the subject, before I go broadcasting that Sinclair’s video is incorrect.

    Did you read Carlin’s report, and the dissections of the report by scientists?

  9. Jason says:

    If I wrote a piece that says “Tom Friedman once again proves he is an idiot by quoting Joe Romm WHO ISN’T EVEN A SCIENTIST on climate change.” I would have impeached my credibility the moment I wrote that sentence.

    It doesn’t matter that an argument can be crafted (perhaps quoting this thread in which Romm himself indicates that the matter is up for debate) in support of Romm not being a scientist. It is at best a weak claim. By stating it without qualification (when any one with minimal competence should be aware of qualifications), I am deliberately trying to mislead.

    [JR: You misunderstood me. Just because some people dispute something, thus making it "up for debate" doesn't make it false. People dispute the moon landing and AGW. Yes, I'm a scientist -- and I even did my thesis work at the Scripps institution of oceanography in the physical oceanography of the Greenland see. But I am not a laboratory scientist.]

    Once I state this, a knowledgeable reader has no choice but to distrust anything that I say. The only point in reading further would be a fascination with my thought process, or an illogical desire to hear their own views reaffirmed.

    Such it is with this video. I have no opinion on what I have not watched. My only opinion is that by deliberately misleading,

    [snip]

    [JR: Carlin is an economist -- and that is a legitimate fact to point out. What you seem to miss is that the EPA is chock full of legitimate scientists and climate scientists -- and they have access to input from all of the top climate scientists in the country. Thus Carlin's input on the science is all but irrelevant -- especially when he does a cut-and-paste job on denier science.]