http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/Email44 0.jpg
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%2 0Comments%206-23-09.pdf

I read the email thread in the pdf, but I'm really baffled as to what you think this proves.

That something fishy is going on. The link to the CEI explained it pretty well I thought.

But if you actually go and read the actual emails in the link you posted it looks to me like a management-employee dispute, a bit of a yawner at that.

The EPA press secretary Adora Andy had this to say about it:

"Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false."

This seems to me like a non-event. Carlin should get back to his job -- he's an economist at the EPA, not a climate scientist. That's what his manager is telling him to do, too.