Saturday, April 10, 2010

Eli can retire Part VII - The EPA plays so's your old man

Well, well, well, Eil discovers that the EPA reads everything, and laughs at some of them. From the US EPA responses to challenges to its Endangerment Finding for increasing CO2 concentrations

Comment (1-12):
Several commenters (1924, 2898.1, 3214.1, 3330.1, 3389, 3446.2, 3560.1, 3679.1, 3748.1, 3969.1, and 4172) argue that EPA should base its endangerment finding on the recent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report entitled Climate Change Reconsidered, instead of IPCC and CCSP reports.

Response (1-12):
EPA has reviewed and considered the NIPCC report and found that it lacks the rigorous procedures and transparency required to serve as a foundation for the endangerment analysis. A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from “14 countries (http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted. Thus, the NIPCC’s approach stands in sharp contrast to the clear, transparent, and open procedures of the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC. Relying on the work of the major assessment reports is a sound and reasonable approach. See Section III.A. of the Findings, “The Science on Which the Decisions Are Based,” for our response to comments on the use of the assessment literature and previous responses in this section regarding our treatment of new and additional scientific literature provided through the public comment process.

Although EPA sees no reason to base the endangerment analysis on the NIPCC, we did thoroughly review the report and the associated references. For EPA’s responses to comments and literature provided on specific climate science issues in the TSD, including the work of the NIPCC, please refer to the appropriate Response to Comment volumes.
Don't wanna mess with those guys

7 comments:

Sou said...

The EPA has been very thorough and diligent. It's staff is clearly of a very high calibre in terms of research skills and communication skills.

Their report is a must have for anyone who is wanting to become familiar with climate science, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Eli.

Alice Van-Weed said...

climate affects people and economy..to broad to say and needs elaboration..but can be pretty much understood why it greatly affects the society..some politicians get the misconception of using their concern for the environment in their political agendas...

Deech56 said...

"The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted."

Priceless. For all their complaints about openness and transparency of science, the think tankers are the epitome of a closed society.

ourchangingclimate said...

Good for EPA.

The NIPCC report is entirely laughable, in how it skews everything it can find to argue for a ridiculously low climate sensitivity, that if real, should have prevented any substantial change in the climate from having occurred. See also http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-nipcc-report/

Bart

J Bowers said...

I'm getting a t-shirt with "EPA Rocks!!" on it. If they ever get too unwelcome in the States they can come to Blighty and stay at my house.

Dan Satterfield said...

I want one of those EPA Rocks T-shirts as well! The responses the Bunny has thrown up from the rabbit hole have been scientifically spot on.

Keep'em coming!

Dan
ps i love it- my word verification for this comment is moose!

John Mashey said...

Again, send the EPA email and say a few good words...