Report: EPA cut corners on climate finding, ignored Data Quality Act, flouted peer review process

In heading: “Report: EPA cut corners on climate finding, ignored Data Quality Act, flaunted peer review process”, please change “flaunted” to “flouted”.
IanM

They’re using the new pal/peer review process, so “flaunted” is probably the right word.

”
‘Carl Bussjaeger says:
They’re using the new pal/peer review process, so “flaunted” is probably the right word.’
They’re using the new pay-pal/peer review process, so “flaunted” is probably the right word
There fixed.
[REPLY: The title has been changed to “flouted”, REP]

Anthony, there is a typo in the article, “EPA” should read “The Ministry of Public Protection”.

Another good sign: I heard about this EPA thing on a general interest blog before I heard it here.
===============

It’s not surprising EPA is fudging the results, for it’s no surprise either that most of the political appointees running the gov’t agencies are crooked as a dog’s hind leg. As a friend long in the civil service elite in one major agency commented recently, they’re unethical and don’t care about anything but their own and Obama’s skins. Washigton is truly infected.

Standard EPA procedure for a long time in the so-called ‘species at risk’ listing game, so to be expected.

Remember the delta smelt, the little fish “saved” by destroying large chunks of California agriculture through the denial of irrigation water?
(bold added)

Angry federal judge rips ‘false testimony’ of federal scientists
By: Ron Arnold | 09/22/11 8:05 PM
(…)
So many lawsuits sparked by the conflict have landed on [U.S. District Judge Oliver] Wanger’s desk, with so many plaintiffs and so many defendants, that he merged them into one and titled his rulings “The Consolidated [salmonid, delta smelt, or whatever] Cases.”
In a searing opinion, Wanger ripped two Interior Department scientists for giving “false” and “incredible” testimony to support a “bad faith” delta smelt preservation plan.
The two scientists are Frederick V. Feyrer of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Jennifer M. Norris of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wanger also threw out huge chunks of the federal government’s official “biological opinion” on five different species, calling the opinion, which is a guidance document for environmental regulators, “arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
(…)
In an earlier decision, for example, he excoriated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency for its to-hell-with-people policy:
“Federal defendants completely abdicated their responsibility to consider reasonable alternatives that would not only protect the species, but would also minimize the adverse impact on humans and the human environment.”
(…)
In a court transcript of last week’s decision obtained by The Washington Examiner, Wanger wrote of Norris: “I find her testimony to be that of a zealot. … The suggestion by Dr. Norris that the failure to implement [her plan], that that’s going to end the delta smelt’s existence on the face of our planet is false, it is outrageous, it is contradicted by her own testimony.”
Feyrer got worse — a ruling of “agency bad faith.”
(…)
Isn’t that a firing offense, even for a career civil servant? I asked Julie McDonald, former deputy assistant secretary of interior for fish and wildlife and parks.
“No, they don’t get fired, they get promoted,” McDonald said, citing the power of the federal “science cartel” to protect its rule over America’s environmental regulations from people like Wanger.

Are you a federal scientist for whom the legal system has found your work faulty, showing dereliction of duty with a demonstrated willingness to lie and deceive while violating the law in order to push the Green agenda? Congratulations, you have a promotion coming!

Table 2: EPA’s examination of IPCC’s AR4 peer review [emphasis mine]
OMB criterion for peer review of highly influential scientific assessments
Did EPA address the OMB criterion in Federal Register notice or response to comments?
Expertise and balance of peer reviewers Yes
Conflicts of interest of peer reviewers No
Independence of peer reviewers Yes
Rotation of peer reviewers No
Information access for peer reviewers No
Opportunities for public participation Yes
Transparency of review process Partially (a)
Management of the peer review Not Applicable (b)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA’s response to comments to the proposed rule.
(a) Transparency was generally addressed but not for all elements. For example, EPA did not discuss whether IPCC procedures required a description of the credentials and relevant experiences of each peer reviewer.
(b) This criterion only applies to peer reviews managed by a federal agency.

No conflicts of interest here, move along.

Flaunted is common US usage, even if not correct Queen’s English.

After watching the EPA Oversight Committee on C-Span this morning, it’s clear we need to be combing through the reports and footnotes used to make environmental policy line by line. I was shocked listening to Joe Barton, R.-Texas, questioning Lisa Jackson, head of EPA, about the studies used to support some kind of policy (just happened to catch a few minutes and missed the intro) about “soot”? and air pollution. He stated that he has still not received copies of the studies included in the footnotes and he was starting to doubt their existence. He went on to describe the sources footnoted were studies that were 10-15 years old, some not peer-reviewed, not replicated, not performed by scientists and on and on. And then another representative questioned her about another set of studies he too had requested and not received.
Who is responsible for ascertaining the scientific integrity of studies and reports submitted to our legislators? And, isn’t it about time that we have some kind of absolute standard of accepted research studies and reports? Much of the “research” used to support Obamacare was based on poorly constructed research that would have failed a freshman basic research class yet, these were accepted in the Congressional Record and used to provide rationale for legislation that effects every man, woman, child in this country. This is what happens when science gets hijacked by agendas.

I am sick of the EPA and here is 230,000 more reasons why!
The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion. That cost does not include the economic impact of the regulations themselves.
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1Z60gcpuY

Dave says:
September 28, 2011 at 8:29 pm
“……Who is responsible for ascertaining the scientific integrity of studies and reports submitted to our legislators? And, isn’t it about time that we have some kind of absolute standard of accepted research studies and reports?…..”
It is well past time!
I looked at some of the reports on Agriculture submitted that I found through Wikileaks and I was appalled by the outright lies. As far as I can tell the US government is now run by the lobbies and citizens are looked upon as “resources” to be squeezed dry of every last penny.
Environmental Activists and others are nothing more than manipulated useful ‘Innocents’ Who is who and who is the enemy is a very confusing kaleidoscope, where a Canadian living in China, billionaire capitalist Maurice Strong is a hardline socialist promoting AGW, the UN’s Agenda 21 and Global Govenance while contributing to both the democratic and republican parties in the USA.

Anyone want to bet on how many Hockey Stick Team members were among the 12 reviewers?
I am betting on 3 minimum.

From Dave on September 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm:

The EPA is asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers to process all the extra paperwork, at an estimated cost of $21 billion.

230,000 new unionized bureaucrats beholden to Democrats for their jobs, with a vested interest in keeping (liberal) Democrats in control of the White House so they can keep their jobs? Then there are their families as well who likewise want them to stay employed…
Well, at a mere US$91,300 per job, that’s far cheaper than what was paid out under the Stimulus bill. Actually, it sounds too cheap, when figuring in training costs, government benefits, office setup and supplies… Were they planning on outsourcing to contractors using undocumented immigrants, and/or relying on that favorite D.C. symbol of (Democrat) power and dominance, unpaid interns?

I have been waiting for the day that EPA not only gets its hands slapped, but their heads cut off. My own past dealings with EPA (and their nitwit state delegated authority, TCEQ) made it quite obvious that they are not a scientific agency, but merely a political one that uses science for its nefarious ends. Protecting the environment is the last thing on their mind – instead, they are advancing the agenda of the environmentalist wacko-types who want us all to wash our clothes on rocks and otherwise return us to the Middle Ages. No sense of balance, no perspective in that agency. It is now time to act – 2012 elections are around the corner. Anyone with a plan to fundamentally reform EPA’s structure, alter its mission, and reduce its bureaucratic powers to unreasonably delay, financially burden, and hamper American economic activity will be supported by me.
Eviscerate them politically, along with their leftist, Democratic allies.