Editorials The EPA's house of cards covering global warming
| 01 February 2010
When the Environmental Protection Agency declared greenhouse gases a danger to the public health, they told us they based their science primarily on three sources. Although the EPA claims to have contributed to the research, their primary sources are the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
The EPA is in the process now of formulating regulations and standards that will determine how light vehicles can be built, maintained and operated to reduce the danger from greenhouse gases. Given the trouble that the IPCC finds itself in these days, should the EPA pause for a moment? The endangerment finding writes, "In 2007, EPA initiated its assessment of the science and other technical information to use in addressing the endangerment and cause or contribute issues before it under CAA section 202(a). This scientific and technical information was developed in the form of a TSD in 2007. An earlier draft of this document was released as part of the ANPR published July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44353). That earlier draft of the TSD relied heavily on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, key NRC reports, and a limited number of then available synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP; now encompassed by USGCRP)." Indeed, the Endangerment Finding cites the IPCC 49 times--almost on every page.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, we now know, falsely said that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, falsely said that hurricanes and floods were causing more damage due to global warming, falsely said that 40% of the Amazon could disappear due to drought caused by climate change, and throughout used papers written by activist organisations instead of scientists using the peer review process. Or abusing the peer review process, as the IPCC's AR4 ignored their own procedures to admit a paper specifically to use in rebutting Steve McIntyre's criticism of their reconstruction of past climates.
Well, some might consider that a blow to the EPA's knowledge base. But maybe the USGCRP makes up for the IPCC's slipshod work. Their latest assessment report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, is presented as a 'state of knowledge report', saying 'it is critical to have the latest and best scientific information to inform decision making.' They used 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products. However, they also relied on... the IPCC and the National Research Council. In fact, the report cites the IPCC 32 times, and the NRC a further 5 times. The NRC, however, also uses IPCC information liberally. (It's not as easy to search through their reports, but I found the IPCC cited as a major source in every document I looked at on their site.)
It's not unusual for large scientific bodies to use each others' published research. Normally it's a way of saving money and avoiding duplicate studies. But the risk here is that, if the IPCC research does not stand up, then other reports that rely too heavily on the IPCC may have structural defects of their own. The EPA may have thought that the IPCC and the USCGRP and the NRF said x, when in fact it was only said by one organisation and repeated by the other two. In a way, the EPA faces the same dilemma as scientists who may have referenced the Hockey Stick study or other flawed findings in papers put out by the crew at CRU--what do you do? Start at the beginning? Try and find out if there's anything usable in there? Call for a lawyer?
The EPA received over 370,000 comments on its proposed endangerment finding, although most were characterised as mass mailings or emailings. As Steve McIntyre reminds us on Climate Audit, those comments are now available for viewing. The EPA lumps similar comments together, like this:
"Commenters argue that the process and structure that IPCC employs in developing its assessment reports yields flawed reports. Specifically, several commenters add that IPCC report development process is not transparent.
"Several of these commenters argue that not all of the authors or governments that participated in the report development process agree with all of the conclusions and that consensus was never reached. A few commenters argue that the IPCC information quality process and system for engaging public comments is flawed, as the IPCC ignores the best available science and comments that have been submitted during public comment.
Several commenters argue that the review process IPCC uses is not objective, transparent to the public, or effective in ensuring that the best available information is used.
Actually, in the first volume (there are three volumes) of comments on the proposed Endangerment Finding, the IPCC is mentioned 449 times. Maybe the EPA should have listened. But they didn't. This is what the EPA thought the IPCC was doing:
"We disagree with the commenter that consensus was not reached amongst the governments and authors involved with the IPCC. Consistent with IPCC procedures, the Summary for Policymakers of Working Groups I, II, and III were ‘approved’ and the full reports of the three Working Groups were ‘accepted’. IPCC Procedures (IPCC, 1999) define ‘approval’ to mean that “the material has been subjected to detailed, line by line discussion and agreement,” and “acceptance” signifies that “the material has not been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter.” Sort of like asking rock climbers if the glaciers are melting.
I'd hate to watch those guys shop for a used car...
Steve Mosher and I have written a book. The title is Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. It is available on Create Space here, Amazon here, Kindle here and Lulu here. One Amazon reviewer wrote, "Mosher and Fuller do a good job putting the ClimateGate documents in context, and the book is a riveting read. I received my copy yesterday, and find the book to be faithful to the climate war events that I have followed over a period of years. It reports actual email communications of a small group of paleoclimatologists and their roles in perhaps the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown Man."
