Lost in the Climategate events has been the publication of EPA’s response to comments on the Endangerment finding on or about Dec 18, 2009.
Followers of the various IPCC gates will appreciate the following quotation from Volume 11 of the Responses:
As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated:
IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment
The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.
Volume 2 contains some discussion of recent events at CRU. There are a number of discussions of issues discussed at Climate Audit and in our papers. Monckton’s comment here was responded to in connection with its exposition of issues discussed by, among others, the NAS Panel, the Wegman panel and IPCC 2007:
The commenter also contends IPCC’s Third Assessment Report gave a proxy data series, which appeared to indicate that the present was warmer than any previous period in the past 600 years, 390 times the weight of a data series that appeared to show the MWP was warmer than the present, raising the question whether the two data series were objectively weighted. Further, the commenter asserts, the computer program that calculated the Mann et al. (1998 and 1999) hockey stick graph relied upon by IPCC in its 2001 report generated graphs indicating that the present is warmer than any previous period in the past 600 years, even when random red noise rather than genuine proxy temperature data was input to the program, raising the question whether the program had been tuned to bias the results so as to
overemphasize the comparative magnitude of recent warming.
To which EPA responded:
With respect to the allegation that an inappropriate weighting was used in IPCC 2001, we note that the comment does not adequately support this assertion. The comment includes a figure with two panels and claims the upper panel was given 390 times the weight of the lower panel, but fails to list the source of the panels or provide attribution for them. Thus, it is impossible to evaluate the whether the claim is reasonable and credible.
Regarding the comment about the “random red noise,” we find that the comment does not adequately support this assertion. The comment includes a figure (with two panels) intended to demonstrate that the
proxy data from Mann et al. (1998—in the upper panel) produces the same result as model with random red noise (in the bottom panel). However, the comment fails to list the source or provide attribution for
the panel showing the model results or describe any documentation for what model was used and how the results were obtained. Thus, EPA cannot evaluate whether these graphs provide reasonable and credible
Monckton’s comment refers to McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005) as follows:
The unsatisfactory statistical methods in Mann et al. were thoroughly exposed by McIntyre & McKitrick (2003, 2005).
However, Monckton did not include a list of references. Thus EPA was stumped as to what to do.
Elsewhere, EPA did provide an odd sort of recognition with my name listed in bold in the Table of Contents of Volume 2 as below. Briffa’s post at CRU was quoted in full – but not my original criticism.
A number of commenters referred to blog posts at Climate Audit, which were dismissed by EPA as not being peer reviewed. No such observations was made about Briffa’s webpage on Yamal.
There is an entire volume about legal and procedural issues. Given the large number of comments, I can understand why EPA can’t respond to every comment. However, they are obligated to respond to all issues.
My submission raised issues with the peer review process at IPCC and elsewhere – that do not appear to have been dealt with in Volume 11. Questions about whether EPA had properly ensured that IPCC peer review processes met the statutory standards required for EPA reliance and whether EPA had carried out the required due diligence to ensure that the peer review processes met those standards.
The various IPCC-gates since the publication of the EPA responses make these questions even more pertinent today – and the failure of EPA responses to respond to these issues more apparent.
Take a look at the site.