Feb
CEI sues EPA over greenhouse gas endangerment finding
An article at globalwarming.org talks about the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) going after the EPA again. This time they are including SEPP and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change in their legal actions.
This all started last year over a report that was concealed by the EPA so they could get their Endangerment Finding about CO2. Had this information been taken into account it would have stopped the Endagerment Finding that CO2 is a danger.
The concealed report, e-mails, and the original petition are not fresh news, but I’ll give a quick rehash to bring those up to date who may be unaware of what has transpired.
E-Mails were sent back and forth, the gist of as follows:
- One from a superior forbidding the author to speak to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues.
- One back from the author to his superior regarding the report being sent to the EPA’s office of Air and Radiaton.
- A reply from his superior advising it wouldn’t be sent (i.e. suppressed)
- A second e-mail sent by his superior 8 minutes later stating “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.” (In other words STFU).
Here are some highlights from the suppressed document the e-mails discuss, taken from the comments in the executive summary:
The current draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 report, which is at best 3 years out of date in a rapidly changing field. There have been important developments in areas that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list includes the following 5:
Global temperatures have declined-extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in September, 2007 and the AMO in January, 2009 respectively. At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated.
The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic tropical cyclones will be little different than those of the past.
The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for the operation of such processes.
One of the worst economic depressions since World War II has greatly decreased GHG emissions compared to the assumptions made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG levels are relevant for future global temperatures, these emission reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of these emissions on public health and welfare. The current draft TSD does not reflect the changes that have already occurred nor those that are likely to occur in in the future as a result of recession. In fact the topic is not even discussed to our knowledge.
A new paper finds that the crucial assumption in the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is strongly negative.
A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct affect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their research suggests that
Solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in the Earth’s global temperatures.
Based upon the above, I’d say you can see why they wanted to hide this study and keep it out of their Endangerment TSD.
The document also notes the following deficiencies:
- Based on old science, no longer appropriate
- Science of TSD out of date
- Disturbing inconsistencies
- Temperature and other scientific data and the GHG/CO2 hypothesis need to be carefully explained and explored if the draft TSD is to be credible
It even notes that following are not explained in the TSD and the author feels they should be included.
- Variations in PDO/ENSO
- The association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations
- That changes in GHD appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
- Surface measurements more ambiguous than satellite measurements. Difference could be due to increased urbanization and UHI.
- Almost all fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes, not human caused pollution
- Possible causes they do not understand
It also notes: ”Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until 2030) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The initial filing June 23, 2009:
CEI’s filing requests that EPA make the suppressed study public, place it into the endangerment docket, and extend the comment period to allow public response to the new information. CEI is also requesting that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the study’s author, a senior analyst who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.
CEI also filed a petition on 10/5/2009 due to Climategate the the missing data. I am not having any luck finding it for review.
These were both ignored and on 12/7/2009 the EPA issued their Endangerment finding in spite of all the damning evidence in the report and in spite of Climategate.
On 2/12/10 CEI filed a petition for reconsideration based upon:
- The IPPC report and the EPA’s proposal and TSD suffered from major flaws
- That new developments (Climategate) happened after their finding and are important enough to warrant reconsideration
- That the EPA’s claim of unequivocal warming is scientifically indefensible
- There is new evidence that scientific studies that undercut global warming claims were repressed
- Recent disclosures make it clear that unscientific claims and reports were utilized by the IPCC
- Contrary to the EPA’s high praise for it, the IPCC report has been revealed to be a political document, not a scientific one
On February 16, 2010 CEI filed a supplemental petition based upon:
- Dr. Phil Jones’ latest statements undercut EPA’s endangerment finding
- The IPCC’s claims regarding hurricanes, adopted by EPA, are now in even more serious doubt
- EPA’s highly questionable use of the absurdity canon in its proposed tailoring rule requires that the agency reconsider its endangerment finding
On February 16, 2010 they also filed a lawsuit with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a review of the EPA’s endangerment finding.
This was obviously not an Endangerment Finding that was based upon science. I feel the decision was a result of the Obama Administration being frustrated about not being able to get Cap and Trade going in Congress and deciding to ram this through in an effort to get us all paying taxes on Carbon, getting carbon credit trading going so Al Gore and his buddies can get filthy rich, and getting with the green agenda to keep his ecotard followers happy.
To give credit where credit is due, the author of the EPA document that was suppressed is Mr. Alan Carlin. He has his own website, and has his own take on the EPA and this decision, information you will probably find to be interesting.
I’m no lawyer so I’ll defer to John O’Sullivan on the technical legal aspects of this. I have to wonder and hope that there’s a legal basis for going after the people who suppressed this information.
Possibly related posts:
Treason.
Sorry if a link to this has been posted in another topic but it is worth reading ‘‘Global warming’: time to get angry’ at http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/global-warming-time-to-get-angry-839/ and it’s worth reading the comments too particularly this one; Tom Forrester-Paton says:
February 24, 2010 at 6:58 am
James – since the Telegraph refuses to accept my registration attempts, I have to respond here to your excellent tirades. You ask the “what will it take…” question. Public faith in AGW is privately eroding, but (im)moral and financial investment in AGW is so heavy and widespread that we risk seeing it dying a quiet death, leaving billions wasted and countless growth-destroying laws festering on statute books the world over (where they will be obeyed by the Anglosphere and the northern Europeans and elsewhere ignored). Getting such a large number of people to accept that they were gulled, and to take appropriate action will require something a bit more seismic than mere erosion.
I have long felt that the best hope lies in a courtroom. It doesn’t really matter who sues whom, where or why, so long as the case is good. What matters in the bigger picture is what the evidence brought to such a trial would reveal, and its capacity to inflict collateral damage on the warmistas, either in criminal law by forcing the hand of an otherwise reluctant Plod, or by creating a precedent in tort which triggers a cascade of actions.
The obstacles to successful litigation by an indvidual are many, and the temptation (if he makes any headway) to settle quietly are great, so surely the right thing to do is for all sceptics who may have been defamed or otherwise damaged by the warmistas to collude and come up with a “poster-boy” case, judging it not necessarily on the extent of damage claimed, but on its strength and the quality of evidence it will entail.
I gather the Americans are getting litigous – maybe there’s hope?
So John what do you think?
Legally, we have all the aces. The US federal courts are, to my mind, the best venues to progress civil claims. As I’ve stated before, there are grave issues here of spoliation of evidence. Spoliation is the US legal doctrine of evidence suppression, manipulation and/or destruction. Invariably, once a court establishes spoliation has occured then that is usually more than sufficient to win the case, either upon a motion for summary judgment or by an adverse inference jury instruction.
JOHN’s analysis of the CEI shows spoliation has occured. The CEI will win this case on this issue alone.
I can’t emphasise enough how critical the issue of data manipularion is to all anti-AGW lawsuits. I just wish more attorneys were aware of how powerful spoliation doctrine is in their legal toolbox in smashing the entire AGW edifice.
check out this Australian site http://www.carbon-sense.com there’s some interesting links including a link to ‘Two Dead Elephants’ the latest briefing booklet produced by Malcolm Roberts one of Aust’s most formidable and tireless sceptics
Agree with PaulNZ.
Treason, alive and well.
The vile and vicious manner in which the climate change crowd in complicity with many Governmental and semi Governmental bodies have operated is of great concern because this has permeated through the many many more activities of the Governments in Europe,Australasia and America.This war must be fought not only on the climate front but in so many other tentacles of the Governments which control and micro manage our lives for the betterment of “their” profits and our detriment.I believe it is a war the extent of which we may not have realised as yet.