Conclusions from suppressed EPA report on CO2 Endangerment

[DaveinOlyWA]

ok so in a nut shell, the OP refers to a study by someone who basically went out, searched (frantically i'm guessing) until they found "A" (probably couldnt find two) study backing his premise.

and we call this report unusual why?? this is standard fare over GCC, mostly funded by the oil companies and has been going on for decades, so why all this discussion over "business as usual?" i would think that PC'er being more informed on average, than the general public, would have learned by now that responding to these kinds of posts is futile and lends indirect credibility.

[robbyr2]

i would think that PC'er being more informed on average, than the general public, would have learned by now that responding to these kinds of posts is futile and lends indirect credibility.

Point well taken. Unfortunately, most of my relatives are hard-core right-wingers. It all gets a little too familiar.

[SageBrush]

I want to be clear why I consider this little tempest in a teapot to be fundamentally different than the Bush era of quashing science that did not match political agenda:

The EPA is a big place, and conflicting opinions can be expected, even sought. Position papers that reach the White House should be a summary judgement of a concensus of intrepetation of the best science available. I don't think that the exclusion of one shitty paper by an economist who is not competent to write on climate change is worthy of comment.

For comparison .. The Bush White House *refused* summary EPA papers it didn't like. The distinction is vast to any thinking person.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

I want to be clear why I consider this little tempest in a teapot to be fundamentally different than the Bush era of quashing science that did not match political agenda:

The EPA is a big place, and conflicting opinions can be expected, even sought. Position papers that reach the White House should be a summary judgement of a concensus of intrepetation of the best science available. I don't think that the exclusion of one shitty paper by an economist who is not competent to write on climate change is worthy of comment.

For comparison .. The Bush White House *refused* summary EPA papers it didn't like. The distinction is vast to any thinking person.

Once again - which of the facts stated by Carlin and Davidson are you disputing?
- That global temperatures are not warming for nearly a decade (and are now cooling)?
- That PDO/ENSO is strongly correlated with global temperatures (much higher correlation than CO2)?
- That hurricane activity has not been demonstrated to have increased in frequency or intensity in correspondence with rising levels of CO2?
- That the satellite temperature record does not show the fingerprint of CO2?

If these are not taken into account as part of the endangerment analysis, then the analysis is fatally flawed and the conclusions politically - not scientifically based.

[ufourya]

This post may broaden the discussion in reference to the EPA's own guidelines concerning scientific data from outside sources and why the IPCC seems to fall outside the EPA's own policies - and yet, they apparently accept the IPCC report as gospel.

Climate Audit Submission to EPA

by Steve McIntyre on June 23rd, 2009

A couple of months ago, I posted on the EPA Endangerment Finding. In Canada, the government would just go ahead and pass the regulations without the long U.S. regulatory processes. In practical terms, some odd coalitions can form for specific policies between people who are worried about energy supply or the impact of energy imports on the U.S. economy and people who are worried about climate. I'm not opposed to governments making decisions, even if I don't agree with the decision.

Contrary to what people on the one hand assume and contrary to urgings of people on the other hand, I don't actually have an opinion on the merits of this particular policy. But there is an aspect to the process that annoys me - the implicit laundering of past stonewalling and obstruction.

EPA guidelines require that highly influential scientific assessments meet a variety of sensible standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence - policies that CA readers know not to have been implemented by the IPCC. I discussed these issues in my prior post and have amplified these arguments in my submission which is online here .
In the submission, I included a consideration of some interesting clauses from the EPA Peer Review Handbook (which appears to be incorporated by reference into EPA Guidelines.)
EPA has to carry out some required processes in order to use a scientific assessment by an external party (mentioning international bodies). One of the requirements is that external party has to submit the assessment to EPA, together with the peer review record, following which EPA officials are obliged to evaluate the material to ensure that if complies with EPA standards (which in this case appear to me to be considerably more rigorous than IPCC standards.)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is obviously a public document, but it doesn't appear to me that anyone bothered to submit it to EPA (together with the peer review record.) Such a submission would create some interesting issues for ongoing FOI obstruction, e.g. the withholding of Mitchell's Review Comments and Ammann's "private" review comments.
Indeed, the various discussions that we've had over the past months over IPCC's amorphous legal status - i.e. IPCC participants having dual status as government employees, with their IPCC affiliation being applied to yield a cone of darkness over activities which would be subject to FOI if they were "merely" government employees.
Evasion of transparency has been a long-running concern of this site and I've used this comment opportunity to place this and related concerns on the record.
| Category: Disclosure and Diligence, Peer Review | Comments (41)

As to the submission by the EPA employee, apparently he had a window of about 5 days to produce his report. I suspect ther are errors, omisions, oversights etc.

[Mike Dimmick]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Once again - which of the facts stated by Carlin and Davidson are you disputing?
- That global temperatures are not warming for nearly a decade (and are now cooling)?
- That PDO/ENSO is strongly correlated with global temperatures (much higher correlation than CO2)?
- That hurricane activity has not been demonstrated to have increased in frequency or intensity in correspondence with rising levels of CO2?
- That the satellite temperature record does not show the fingerprint of CO2?

We are disputing all of them, because they do not fit the overwhelming weight of evidence that exists to support the hypothesis that human activity is having an effect on the climate, and one of the primary drivers ('forcings') is increase in CO2 levels.

Frequently comparisons made are disingenuous, based on very selective use of start points. Claims that there has been cooling over some period of time typically have chosen a very hot year as their starting point. There are always outliers in data, and you don't get a good sense of trends if you anchor your series on an outlier.

There is disagreement among climate scientists of the exact rate of climate change, and the exact effects we can expect to occur, but it is not in dispute that there is climate change and we can expect disadvantageous outcomes.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by ufourya

This post may broaden the discussion in reference to the EPA's own guidelines concerning scientific data from outside sources and why the IPCC seems to fall outside the EPA's own policies - and yet, they apparently accept the IPCC report as gospel.

Climate Audit Submission to EPA

by Steve McIntyre on June 23rd, 2009

A couple of months ago, I posted on the EPA Endangerment Finding. In Canada, the government would just go ahead and pass the regulations without the long U.S. regulatory processes. In practical terms, some odd coalitions can form for specific policies between people who are worried about energy supply or the impact of energy imports on the U.S. economy and people who are worried about climate. I'm not opposed to governments making decisions, even if I don't agree with the decision.

Contrary to what people on the one hand assume and contrary to urgings of people on the other hand, I don't actually have an opinion on the merits of this particular policy. But there is an aspect to the process that annoys me - the implicit laundering of past stonewalling and obstruction.

EPA guidelines require that highly influential scientific assessments meet a variety of sensible standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence - policies that CA readers know not to have been implemented by the IPCC. I discussed these issues in my prior post and have amplified these arguments in my submission which is online here .
In the submission, I included a consideration of some interesting clauses from the EPA Peer Review Handbook (which appears to be incorporated by reference into EPA Guidelines.)
EPA has to carry out some required processes in order to use a scientific assessment by an external party (mentioning international bodies). One of the requirements is that external party has to submit the assessment to EPA, together with the peer review record, following which EPA officials are obliged to evaluate the material to ensure that if complies with EPA standards (which in this case appear to me to be considerably more rigorous than IPCC standards.)

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is obviously a public document, but it doesn't appear to me that anyone bothered to submit it to EPA (together with the peer review record.) Such a submission would create some interesting issues for ongoing FOI obstruction, e.g. the withholding of Mitchell's Review Comments and Ammann's "private" review comments.
Indeed, the various discussions that we've had over the past months over IPCC's amorphous legal status - i.e. IPCC participants having dual status as government employees, with their IPCC affiliation being applied to yield a cone of darkness over activities which would be subject to FOI if they were "merely" government employees.
Evasion of transparency has been a long-running concern of this site and I've used this comment opportunity to place this and related concerns on the record.
| Category: Disclosure and Diligence, Peer Review | Comments (41)

As to the submission by the EPA employee, apparently he had a window of about 5 days to produce his report. I suspect ther are errors, omisions, oversights etc.

LOL. Don't hold your breath waiting for EPA to peer review IPCC findings. We both know that'll never happen. I love the way big O's administration trumpets the use of science while trampling the scientific (and their own legally binding) process and suppressing dissent.

This quote from Orwell's 1984 seems appropriate:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

[Mike Dimmick]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

LOL. Don't hold your breath waiting for EPA to peer review IPCC findings. We both know that'll never happen. I love the way big O's administration trumpets the use of science while trampling the scientific (and their own legally binding) process and suppressing dissent.

IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's a collaboration between government environmental agencies.

IPCC's reports are consensus (compromise) reports of hundreds of scientists, some of whom work for EPA - it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They have had a much higher standard of peer review than your average academic article. There is no need for further review within your government's regulatory agency because pretty much everyone who would have anything worthwhile to say has already had their say at IPCC.

"Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments."

- from Principles Governing IPCC Work

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Mike Dimmick

IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's a collaboration between government environmental agencies.

IPCC's reports are consensus (compromise) reports of hundreds of scientists, some of whom work for EPA - it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They have had a much higher standard of peer review than your average academic article. There is no need for further review within your government's regulatory agency because pretty much everyone who would have anything worthwhile to say has already had their say at IPCC.

"Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments."

- from Principles Governing IPCC Work

There are several problems with your statement. First, IPCC work product, although it relies on peer review research, is not itself peer reviewed. It is a culmination of points of view brought by each section's participants but ultimately determined by each sections lead author.

Second, even if the IPCC documents were fully peer reviewed, they are now based on data and studies which are 5+ years old.

Third, EPA peer review guidelines state:

"The peer review of scientific and technical work products that support rulemaking actions is an important, fundamental step in the policy setting process and which affirms the credibility of the Agency. Because new rules, and the work products supporting them, must often withstand intense scrutiny by the general public and the stakeholders involved in the action, the peer review process selected for such work products needs to be well planned and documented. The rule or regulation itself is not subject to the Peer Review Policy. However, if the rule or regulation is supported by a major scientific and/or technical work product, that work product should be peer reviewed prior to its use in the rule."

[TimBikes]

Also, just for kicks, here is the latest satellite temperature data. A few interesting points:

1) Prior to 1998, there is almost NO upward trend in temperatures.
2) From month 276 - 360+ there is NO upward trend in temperature.
3) 1998, a strong El Nino year, drove a huge increase in measured temperatures. It is even more interesting that the temperature declined rapidly after 1998, then abruptly reverses 2 years after and stays level (or declines) from that point on through the end of the record.
4) There is supposed to be tropospheric amplification of surface warming, as per global climate models. But you don't see that in the data.

Can anyone explain to me how this temperature profile correlates to steady increases in CO2? I really fail to see the fingerprint of CO2 in this and Carlin and Davidson, in their comments regarding EPA's endangerment ruling, make the same observation.

To date, I have not seen the folks over at RealClimate even talk about this in their critique of Carlin and Davidson's EPA comment document.