31

Environment/Energy · Politics

Tales from the EPA

robertsussmanOn a recent work-related field trip to Washington D.C., I had the opportunity to pose some questions to EPA Senior Policy Advisor for Oil and Natural Gas, Bob Sussman.

The subject matter of his presentation and the ensuing discussion revolved largely around potential EPA actions regarding fracking, approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and LNG exports, but also included commentary on climate change regulation initiatives that were likely to proceed from the administration.

My question was as follows: 

Paul Crovo: “Despite claims by many such as Al Gore that the subject of man-made climate change is settled, there is a substantial and credible body of within the scientific community that has published hundreds of peer reviewed studies that bring such claims into question. Does the administration take dissenting views into account when it formulates its policy decisions on potential climate change regulations?”

Before we get on with it, let me say this: I was expecting the question to elicit a well-reasoned response from Mr. Sussman. But the answer that was given was, frankly, barren of facts and not very well supported. The advisor first took a few steps back by stating that he was not a climate change scientist, so as to apparently qualify his limited knowledge of the science.

He then proceeded to cite studies from the National Academy of Sciences as reasoning enough to support the idea that climate change was being driven by man-made actions. He then concluded by saying he believed that “the debate on the science was largely settled.” I followed up with a question on the president’s State of the Union speech in which he articulated some “facts” that he felt offered proof of anthropogenic global warming. Ok, on with it:

PC: “So you would concur with the President’s claims regarding climate change that he mentioned in his State of the Union Speech?”

Sussman: “What claims are you referring to?’

PC: “Record high temperatures and extreme weather events…”

Sussman: “Again, I am not a climate scientist, but….”

In short, I guess I came away a little surprised that a senior advisor to the EPA, even one who may not specialize in climate change, would be so reluctant to offer any of his own defense of the AGW argument and would be so quick to fall back on NAS studies. Frankly, as someone who is by no means an expert, but has done his share of reading on the subject over the last four years, I came away believing I knew more about the subject than Mr. Sussman.

This little experience actually made me wonder how many people at the EPA actually know that much about the science the agency claims as support for their regulatory efforts.

Tags:

Paul Crovo

— Paul Crovo

Paul, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, currently works as an energy analyst for a major financial institution in Philadelphia. He has followed the energy industry for 27 years in his line of work and over the last five years has expanded his research to include the area of climate change science. Early in his career he became an active member in the National Association of Petroleum Analysts (NAPIA) and remains part of the organization today. He is an active participant in many local Tea Party events and has written extensively for local media on issues of energy policy and climate change. His posts at this blog reflect his opinions alone.

  • harryhammer

    I think I can explain why Bob Sussman responded the way he did to you as well as why you’re feeling so incredibly smart about climate science.

    It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Historical references:

    Proverbs 12:15:

    “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.”

    Willian Shakespeare:

    “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

    Charles Darwin:

    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

    Bertrand Russell:

    “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.”

    Dunning-Kruger effect (from Wikipedia Encyclopedia):

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

    Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others”.

    In other words, people with true ability tend to underestimate their relative competence.

    • Paul Crovo

      Frankly sir, I think you quite misunderstand me. In no way do I seek to present myself as any kind of an expert on the science. There are many professionals and academics in the science community who know way more than me, and I think I made that point clearly. The point I wished to make was that advisors like Mr. Sussman, who are paid by the taxpayer to be knowledgeable about the policies they promote, should have been able to provide some more fact-based answers to my questions. Please read with more objectivity next time, and do not try to read into someone’s comments something that is not there.

      • harryhammer

        Mr. Crovo, with all due respect, there are no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory of climate change, or the broad projections of climate change.

        Do scientific awards and honors mean anything to you?

        The Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award that you can win in the field of science.

        Three climate scientists won the Nobel Prize in atmospheric chemistry.

        They saved the world once already.

        Here’s a link to credible sources:

        http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html

        I’m familiar with your sources because there aren’t many.

        I’ve looked at their productions.

        To be kind, your guys pale in comparison to the top guys in the field.

        It isn’t even close.

        It’s like comparing a kid at Jiffy Lube to Mario Andretti’s chief mechanic.

        • Paul Crovo

          When Oslo gave the Nobel Prize to Al Gore, it lost any legitimacy it had left. Any scientist worth his weight will tell you what a charlatan Al Gore is when it comes to climate change science. They literally laugh. Even those who support AGW laugh at him. So in many respects the Nobel Prize has just become a pat on the back for those who advocate for the European statist model. Given what the results of that social model has produced, you can keep your Nobel Prize winners and I will keep my free market capitalist system.

          • harryhammer

            Mr. Crovo, as you mentioned, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by a Swedish organization.

            Make no mistake about it.

            Sweden’s Royal Academies are without a doubt the most influential scientific and literary bodies in the world.

            There is no denying that anyone who wins a Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, or in Economic Sciences knows the subject well.

            My point is, there’s a big difference between a Nobel Peace Prize and a Nobel Prize in atmospheric chemistry.

            As for Al Gore:

            When he was 5 years old Time magazine and Popular Mechanics were running articles on the work of a physicist named Gilbert Plass.

            http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890597,00.html

            Plass had just completed some calculations on the atmospheric warming effect of carbon dioxide. He certainly wasn’t the first person to make such calculations, but he was the first to make use of computers to perform the calculations in much greater detail.

            He drew attention to the point that man-made CO2 emissions would have a significant warming effect on the Earth’s temperature.

            Popular Mechanics reported the results under the headline “Growing Blanket of Carbon Dioxide Raises Earth’s Temperature”.

            http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/16/1953-popular-mechanics-growing-blanket-of-carbon-dioxide-raises-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature/

            You and your pals can laugh all you want, but, the truth is America never had it as good as when Al Gore was vice-president.

            Clinton and Gore left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating ever.

            Some highlights:

            · They created more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever under a single administration.

            · The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

            · Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years.

            · Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration.

            · The largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years.

            · The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

            2 Timothy 4:3-4:

            “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”

          • Frank Koza

            Congress never achieved a budget surplus during the Clinton administration. The total national debt increased in each of those years you claimed there was a surplus.

          • harryhammer

            Here’s the source:

            http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/additional.html

            Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the Federal budget deficit was $290 billion – the largest dollar deficit in American history. In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would grow to $455 billion by 2000. The Office of Management and Budget is now projecting a surplus of at least $230 billion for 2000 – the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever, even after adjusting for inflation. Compared with original projections, that is over $685 billion less in government drain on the economy and over $685 billion more potentially available for private investment in this one year alone. The 2000 surplus is projected to be 2.4 percent of GDP — the largest surplus as a share of GDP since 1948. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century, and it is the second consecutive surplus excluding Social Security.

            [Office of Management and Budget; National Economic Council, 9/27/00]

            Paying Off the National Debt. In July 2000, the Treasury Department announced that the United States will pay off $221 billion of debt this year — the largest one-year debt pay down in American history. This will be the third consecutive year of debt reduction, bringing the three-year total to $360 billion. Public debt is on track to be $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected in 1993. Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people — a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Reduced debt also means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. With the President’s plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation’s publicly held debt by at least 2012.

            [Treasury Department, Office of Economic Policy, From Widening Deficits to Paying Down the Debt: Benefits for the American People, 8/4/99]

  • uncleCharlie

    harryhammer, you appear to be the [snip, namecalling] that is quoted in the Dunning-Kruger effect………re read your post and ask yourself who is this [snip, name-calling]? quotes and all!

  • harryhammer

    I believe in capitalism.

    The problem there’s nothing remotely like capitalism in existence.

    Capitalism disappeared about 80 or 90 years ago.

  • harryhammer

    No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

    Here are the three points:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.

    “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

    If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.

    From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

    • Samurai_Sam
      • harryhammer

        The world is currently burning oil at a rate of about 40,000 US gallons per second.

        That’s a 24/7 massive river of oil on fire.

        Add to that a 24/7 massive mountain of coal on fire.

        It”s incredibly naive to downplay the effect of such burning.

        • Samurai_Sam

          A single volcanic eruption puts thousands of times more polutents into the atmosphere, and no one is downplaying the effects of the burning your mentioning here. There is the very real problem of diminishing fossil fuels etc. But this conversation began with my comment about the Nobel prize and how insignificant an award it has become since any idiot as outlined in that comment can receive one. Your defense is that because they have some knowledge in a particular field they are some sort of infallible gods of their profession while any that disagree are stupid uneducated bimbo’s

  • harryhammer

    A Nobel Prize in science is different.

    • Daniel F. Melton

      While you may be technically correct about the science awards being ‘different’, there are enough nobel laureates who ascribe to the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ theory to make the whole organization a laughingstock.

      As to your statement “Every scientific organization on earth that matters disagrees with you.” is factually incorrect . What you mean to say is every socialist oriented scientific organization you worship disagrees with me.

      Please explain how a gas comprising less than .02%~.03% of the global atmosphere with historic levels much higher than today can affect climate? Especially since water vapor is the primary and overpowering “greenhouse gas”…. Charts and research papers available on request.

      • harryhammer

        The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln.

        Lincoln must have been socialist oriented.

        In 2005, the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the National Academy of Sciences) plus science academies of Brazil, China, and India signed a statement on the global response to climate change.

        The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change had become sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

        In 2010, a letter signed by 255 Academy members was published in Science magazine, decrying “political assaults” against climate change scientists:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter

        • Daniel F. Melton

          Whether lincoln might have been a socialist is moot. he’s been dead too long to matter. As to the NAS, it has been infiltrated and subverted.

          How many of those 255 “scientists” decried “political assaults” against those scientists who disagreed with “climate change scientists”, and how many were advocating trials and execution for any who disputed the “fact” of global warming?

          You want to throw numbers? Here’s one: 36,000.

          http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate
          Today, the Royal Society of Chemistry

          http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
          (RSC) announced to the Parliamentary Select Committee investigating the Climategate scandal that it is not letting Climategate fraudsters off the hook. The RSC has unequivocally stated:

          “scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.”

          The RSC now stands shoulder to shoulder with the 36,000 strong Institute of Physics
          in speaking out against the cover up and destruction of data by unethical and criminal climate researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

          • harryhammer

            Did they ever catch the only real crooks in the case?

            What I mean is, did they ever catch the hackers/thieves/burglars/criminals?

            Do you typically side with true criminals?

            The hackers stole 160 Mb of data which included over 1000 emails and 3000 other documents.

            That’s the equivalent of about 7 ft. of encyclopedia sized books on a shelf.

            The American Geophysical Union – 61,000 members:

            “The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has received a number of inquiries asking about our response to the release of e-mail hacked from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia. AGU finds it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change.”

            The American Meteorological Association – 14,000 members:

            “For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.”

            The AAAS – 127,000 members:

            Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said “AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science.”

            Newsflash:

            Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

            Eight!

            Will nine satisfy you?

            How about 10?

            How about 100?

            Incidentally, which sentence out of all that stolen material has you so upset?

            Be specific.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Were many of these communications hacked (or released) the subject of freedom of information requests and court battles over the refusal to release them?

            Do I side with criminals? Not usually. Have I? Yes. The purpose in those cases was to bring down those responsible for more egregious criminal acts and enterprises.

            So you have a list of scientific organizations that decry the hacked email accounts. I’ll give you a hint, all elephants hate elephant hunters, even though they may hate other elephants. They fear the guns may turn on them next. You state that eight committees investigated and found “no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct”. Where is the transcript of the investigations and hearings?
            Many of the notables who desired to testify were not heard.

            There is no particular “sentence” in those communications that has me upset, it is the fact that there has been and continues to be a concerted effort to deny access to the science and methodology behind the global warming scam, and the billions wasted to stop a phenomenon that is not happening by means of reducing production of a natural chemical that comprises .02~.03% of the atmosphere, when the greenhouse gas known as water vapor overwhelms all other atmospheric components in quantity and effectiveness.

          • harryhammer

            Mr. Melton, have you ever been audited?

            Has the tax man ever called you and said he’s coming over to look at your computer files and your books?

            It happens to folks from time to time, sometimes randomly, sometimes never.

            But, when it does happen it’s a major pain in the ass.

            Freedom of Information Act requests to a scientist are like you being audited.

            Now imagine that instead of being audited once in a blue moon to 50 times in a week overnight all of a sudden.

            Imagine your mailbox full to the brim.

            The kids, the wife, the dog, the job etc… are all still there.

            Folks gotta eat.

            These scientists were bombarded with Freedom of Information Requests.

            Imagine yourself being audited 50 times in a week.

            There wasn’t anything sinister about it.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            My response to your excuse is: Male bovine excrement.

            There has been more time and money spent fighting these FOIA requests than would have been spent complying.

            If these ‘scientists’ are so busy, they have staff or undergraduates and students to take care of these niggling inconveniences. There are even generic search engines included in most computer operating systems that will discover everything within the search parameters on the on the hard drives of computer networks utilized by the ‘scientist’, research group, or university.

            Point of fact: The refusal to divulge ANY information is what precipitated the avalanche of FOIA requests. What is so secret and arcane that no one outside the cabal of high priests may know? If I ask for the raw data my tax money has paid to assemble, why is it suddenly “not available”? How were the high priests of climatology so inept as to lose the raw data during a ‘move’ at the Hadley CRU? Sounds much like “The dog ate my homework.” Why has the person(s) involved not been terminated? Given the economic consequences and paucity of expected results from very expensive ‘carbon sequestration’ programs, why has this “lost data” not been gathered again and publicly processed? With full disclosure, there could be no doubt as to the fact or fraud of global warming.

            BTW, according to the reports I’ve seen there has been no appreciable warming beyond the errors inherent in the measuring instruments since 1997.

            Could it be that anthropogenic global warming is a lie?

            CO2 comprises 0.02%~0.03% of the global atmosphere. Is that measure by weight or by volume? With such a minuscule quantity, does that even matter?

            The computer models utilized to predict catastrophic global warming have been proved incapable of predicting the climate of the recent past.

            The content of those hacked email accounts indicates one hell of a fraud, and the ‘hearings’ were blatant attempts to cover up the fraud. Cui bono?

          • harryhammer

            I agree that your response is male bovine excrement.

            Your words:

            “The content of those hacked email accounts indicates one hell of a fraud, and the ‘hearings’ were blatant attempts to cover up the fraud. Cui bono?”

            As I mentioned in a previous post, 8 committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

            I thought it was settled at 2 and now we’re at 8.

            How many separate independent inquiries will it take to satisfy you, Mr. Melton?

            The magazine Nature was first published on November 4, 1869.

            It is ranked the world’s most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports.

            Here’s what this 144 year old journal had to say on this:

            “it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context”.

            Matthew 7:1-5:

            “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

            Capiche?

          • Daniel F. Melton

            What is your point in referencing a magazine, even if it has been published for near 150 years? It’s no secret that the editorial slant is changed every time an editor is replaced, and to have one ‘science’ publication laud another smacks of incest.

            How many hearings will it take before I believe that there is no fraud involved in the AGW scam? Let me conduct the investigation without political constraints or lawyers and it will only take one. Of course I tend to be rude and prone to violence when evidence contradicts testimony….but I will get the truth.

            Do not throw bible verses at me. I am not a Christian.

          • harryhammer

            It sounds like you feel the need to torture someone Mr. Melton.

            Your words:

            “Do not throw bible verses at me. I am not a Christian.”

            Look around you, Mr. Melton.

            You’re surrounded by Christians.

            In the United States, 77% of the adult population identify with a Christian religion.

            But, that’s beside the point.

            You don’t have to be Christian to respect the elementary morality found in the gospels.

            I recommend a course in ethics, tough guy.

            Checkmate.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            When there is contest with an opponent who has no morals, why should I constrain my options? I have found that those who ascribe to liberalism, especially the alinsky style, consider “truth” to be maleable and subject to situational interpretation.
            Christianity as a philosophy has many good and reasomable aspects which the opposition is quick to exploit.
            Have you been through SERE training? I have. Have you experience in combat? I have. Waterboarding is great if you have weeks to work on the subject. They already know that you won’t permanently damage ‘em. I have found the simplest method to get information is to convince the subject that you will carry through with stated consequences. A little preparation, stagecraft, and some props work wonders. It’s a great time saver. No field phones, no knife work, and the subject is available for further interrogation. I was in an intelligence unit 1969-1971, VN.
            Checkmate? Board games. Great for teaching strategy to juveniles. Grow up.

          • harryhammer

            It sounds like your oxytocin levels are running a little high.

            You might want to get that checked out.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/30/bright-ideas-oxytocin-hormone-racism

            As in the United Kingdom, United States law prohibits using evidence obtained illegally or under duress in US courts.

            In other words, torture is illegal.

            Furthermore, if we torture, aren’t we just as bad as our enemies?

            Mr. Milton, what makes you so much better than everyone else?

            It seems like you’re the one lacking in morals.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Now you’re an armchair physician?
            I served in the U.S. Army. I don’t think they had SEAL teams back then.

          • harryhammer

            Blah, blah, blah…

            You’re hopping around from subject to subject like a rabbit.

            I’ll end it with this:

            http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.ca/2007/05/another-general-speaks-out-against.html

            It’s been a slice, but, I have to go.

            There’s a new episode of “Duck Dynasty” is coming on and I don’t want to miss it.

          • Daniel F. Melton

            Getting tired of messing with ya anyway. No contest.