Comments on: EPA Response to Comments

By: EPA: the Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential scientific assessment” « Climate Audit

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:17:22 +0000

[...] on point.) The points in my submission were not addressed in EPA’s responses to comments (see here) and there the matter seemed to [...]

By: Yes Virginia, the Climate Bible Relies on Newspaper Clippings « NoFrakkingConsensus

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:35:56 +0000

[...] Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit highlighted recently, important institutions tend to believe Pachauri when he makes such claims. A December [...]

By: Złoto

Złoto — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:39:01 +0000

Are You sure that editorializing is true?

By: Ken Keylor

Ken Keylor — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:16:35 +0000

A couple of weeks ago I was in an audience where Gina McCarthy was outlining EPA’s plans to go forward with GHG regulation. When asked about “climategate” her response was quick (scripted?): “…the CRU emails were hacked and thus illegally accessed. Nonetheless, EPA relies on more sources than CRU, for example we get supporting science from National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. It’s our position that the science of man-made global climate change is solid.”

Question: how much “bad science” do you believe has leaked into these organizations as well?

By: Chris Polis

Chris Polis — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:49:16 +0000

Ever considered that most people would rather ‘parse’ a blog post than a scientific paper, especially in a field that they are not particularly familiar with? Scientific papers are not know for their readability…

By: CWells

CWells — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:25:31 +0000

Given all this need for regulation, does anyone now where NOAA keeps the actual CO2 satellite data stored. Couldn’t find it in the SOS or Carbon Tracker, unless in files my mere work computer cannot access. But the lovely yearly gif. graphics at the CO2 Weather Movies shows a very strange phenom in the northern hemi I’d like to just check.
All help welcome.
CJW

By: justbeau

justbeau — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:13:12 +0000

One way to champion Global Warming is to invite a huge number of public comments. Lump them together and write legalistic or otherwise trivial replies. In this way, the thrust of comments, some of which may be reasonable, are obscured amid the vast number of comments and the mundane and trivial nature of official responses.

By: Dr Iain McQueen

Dr Iain McQueen — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:29:41 +0000

My point was really that the EPA response is so riddled with flaws, that I believe the political masters may have said to them “It doesn’t matter – the American people were never really that keen on this AGW story, never mind Bushes ‘hesitant’ attitude to accept the idea. Doesn’t matter if we have to let this one go. Could be safer come the election, d’you see. You can go down fighting if you want to, but you should go down.”

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:09:53 +0000

Oh, I get it now. Because Steve doesn’t conform to your narrow and restricted world view, his opinions should not be heard; that they are less valuable. What a quaint and outdated notion. Of course he could do what the IPCC does and dredge up some obscure comment in a little read magazine and call it peer reviewed, cutting edge science. Would that make you happy?

By: Joe Crawford

Joe Crawford — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:08:35 +0000

re Dr Iain McQueen (Jan 30 21:28), I do find it interesting that the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, with a master’s degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_P._Jackson), would allow such an obviously flawed document to be issued. Apparently, she has either become a ‘true believer’ in AGW or has delegated a bit too much responsibility without proper oversight. From the Wikipedia:

“On December 8, 2009, Lisa Jackson said in a written statement that the finding, which declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases a threat to public health, marks the start of a U.S. campaign to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.