One of the essential elements in Mann’s reliance on EPA findings is his assertion that his supposed exoneration by EPA had been “widely available and commented” on in the media and had been “read by the Defendants”: All of the above reports and publications were widely available and commented upon in the national and international […]
In today’s post, I will return to my series on false claims in Mann’s lawsuit about supposed “exonerations”. ( For previous articles, see here). One of the most important misconduct allegations against Mann – the “amputation” of the Briffa reconstruction in IPCC TAR – was discussed recently by Judy Curry, who, in turn, covered Congressional testimony […]
In a recent post, Keith Kloor worried about what would happen when a “bad paper spotlighted on a popular climate blog” is not debunked. In fact, even when a “bad paper spotlighted on a popular climate blog” is debunked, that doesn’t prevent subsequent reliance in policy discussions, as we see in EPA citation of the […]
The recent report of the EPA Office of Inspector General(OIG) contains a remarkable dispute between the OIG on the one hand and EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the other as to whether the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Endangerment Finding was a “highly influential scientific assessment”, a defined category […]
The EPA, as expected, has denied the various petitions for reconsideration of their Endangerment Finding. They refer to the various “inquiries” on some points. Interesting reading here http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
While considerable attention has been paid by me and others to the cozy UK “inquiries”, Climategate is featuring prominently in another not-so-cozy forum in the US, though the connection has not been articulated to a larger audience. A June 18 article in the New York Times reports: Three judges issued an order (pdf) Wednesday that […]
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 […]
One of the more interesting knock-ons of the opportunistic IPCC reliance on WWF and similar “authorities” is that it may compromise the ability of the U.S. EPA to argue that IPCC peer review meets the statutory standards required of EPA peer review. In this respect, I refer to the Climate Audit submission to EPA last […]
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 […]
The U.S. EPA just released (Apr 17, 2009) “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” url together with a Technical Support Document url. In Canada and most countries, governments just implement these sorts of policies without the huge regulatory process that delays everything in […]
Climate Audit 
EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC
The U.S. EPA just released (Apr 17, 2009) “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” url together with a Technical Support Document url. In Canada and most countries, governments just implement these sorts of policies without the huge regulatory process that delays everything in […]