Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Alan Carlin

Comments matching the search Alan Carlin:

Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant

Tom Dayton at 10:56 AM on 28 May, 2015

Alan Carlin is a PhD economist, though he does have a Bachelor's in physics. His contentions are straight from the denialist's playbook, including the disproof of CO2 as a global warming cause because temperatures decreased in the six years from 2002 to 2008 (he claimed), CO2 rise follows temperature rise, . . . . DeSmogBlog has a profile.

Memo to Jeb Bush: denying human-caused global warming is ignorant

RM at 10:36 AM on 28 May, 2015

Slightly OT but does anyone know about Dr Alan Carlin's book Environmentalism Gone Mad? Apparently he is a 38 yr vet at the EPA and a Sierra Club chapter chairman, an aquaintance said I should read, is he legit?

How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

barry at 16:25 PM on 23 November, 2013

Question:

Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

Any leads appreciated.

Barry.

Why I Resigned from the Editorial Board of Climate over its Akasofu Publication

VictorVenema at 02:31 AM on 5 September, 2013

(Can a moderator remove the first version of my comment with all the link errors)

I was afraid this would happen, but am surprised it happened that fast.

Some time ago, I came across the article A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change by Alan Carlin.

This paper should never have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is a collection of weird figures taken off of climate ostrich blogs.

Furthermore Mr. Carlin (a well-known climate "sceptic") was guest editor of the special issue in which his paper was published in record time. Thus I asked the published IJERPH how they handle such cases. How they make sure that the reviews are independent and a reviewer can be sure that his anonymity is kept. And I asked who selected Alan Carlin to be guest editor?

I got no real answer from the managing editor Dr. Ophelia Han, just empty words about their great peer-review. I found this very unsatisfactory and made a note never to publish with MDPI.

The publisher has more issues.

The second scandal is another erroneous climate paper in the journal Remote Sensing by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, which led to resignation of the editor.

Furthermore, A paper in the journal Life solving the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe led several editors to resign, but not to its retraction. That such a paper can be published is unbelievable. I do encourage people to read this article, it is great fun.

I can only conclude that I will never risk my reputation by publishing in a MDPI journal and that I will advice my colleagues not to publish anything in the new journal Climate.

Why I care about climate change

JMurphy at 03:07 AM on 10 August, 2010

gallopingcamel wrote : "For example, I reject the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson at the EPA who claims that CO2 is a pollutant."

Come on : to be more accurate, you should write : "I reject what I believe to be the unscientific position of Lisa Jackson and the EPA who have put forward a very clear case that CO2 is a pollutant."

This is because you reject the findings of EPA authors and contributors Benjamin DeAngelo, Jason Samenow, Jeremy Martinich, Doug Grano, Dina Kruger, Marcus Sarofim, Lesley Jantarasami, William Perkins, Michael Kolian, Melissa Weitz, Leif Hockstad, William Irving, Lisa Hanle, Darrell Winner, David Chalmers, Brian Cook, Chris Weaver, Susan Julius, Brooke Hemming, Sarah Garman, Rona Birnbaum, Paul Argyropoulos, Al McGartland, Alan Carlin, John Davidson, Tim Benner, Carol Holmes, John Hannon, Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Andy Miller, and Pamela Williams.

And you reject the findings of Federal expert reviewers Virginia Burkett, USGS; Phil DeCola; NASA; William Emanuel, NASA; Anne Grambsch, EPA; Jerry Hatfield, USDA; Anthony Janetos; DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service; Thomas Karl, NOAA; Michael McGeehin, CDC; Gavin Schmidt, NASA; Susan Solomon, NOAA; and Thomas Wilbanks, DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

You also reject the scientific knowldege of NOAA, USGCRP, IPCC, CCSP, NRC, EPA, ACIA, on which the EPA Report is heavily based.

You also reject an EPA Report that "...relies most heavily on existing, and in most cases very recent, synthesis reports of climate change science and potential impacts, which have undergone their own peer-review processes, including review by the U.S. government."

You also reject the document which also "underwent a technical review by 12 federal climate change experts, internal EPA review, interagency review, and a public comment period."

To view more that gallopingcamel rejects, the report is here.

Perhaps you agree with the petitioners who complained, including the states of Texas and Virginia and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and challenged the EPA regulations, citing recent controversies as evidence of flaws in climate science and a conspiracy among mainstream scientists to shut out dissenting views ? Well, the EPA rejected those.

So, what do you reject and why ? What makes you believe that your own scientific knowledge is good enough to reject the EPA Report ? Don't say it's all down to politics...!

Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming

Doug Bostrom at 05:44 AM on 27 February, 2010

Tony Noerpel at 02:53 AM on 27 February, 2010

That's a very thought provoking comment, thank you.

RSVP at 05:15 AM on 27 February, 2010

"Lax" it is. Multiple claims citing Anthony Watts' blog, numerous other blogs cited in support of conclusions, also newspaper opinion pieces as well as a parade of papers many of which are familiar because their conclusions were invalidated with fanfare.

Hardly authoritative.

I was especially surprised by the claim that global temperatures have been declining based on a carefully selected endpoints including spans of as short as two years. That's a bit beyond "lax."

This document is of course the famous Alan Carlin extracurricular project, widely discussed last year.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results