I just sent my comments in, and have included excerpts from them below for structure and ideas. If you have not done it yet, get your comments in. I did mine via email. Some excerpts from my commentary are listed below. You can send public comments here: ghg–endangerment-docket@epa.gov
To submit a comment, identify them with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 and submit them online, by email, by facsimile, by mail or by hand delivery.
The docket # is Re: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0171 Be sure to include that number in email
They must be received by EPA by June 23. TODAY
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, by one of the following methods:
– Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
– E-mail: ghg-endangerment-docket@epa.gov
– Fax: (202) 566-1741.
– Postal Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. TOO LATE
– Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Air Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Some examples:
This Climate Audit post can also be useful for ideas.
As a guide for doing this, WUWT reader Roger Sowell has some useful guidelines that I find helpful:
This is an excellent opportunity to be heard by the EPA.
I want to share some thoughts about making public comments, as I attend many public hearings on various issues before agencies and commissions, listen to the comments, observe the commenters, and read many of the written comments that are submitted. I also make comments from time to time. I meet with various commissioners and members of public agencies, and get their views and feedback on comments and those who make the comments.
One of my public comments on California’s Global Warming law is here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/scopingpln08/1554-arb_letter_sowell_12-9-08.pdf
Comments are made in all forms and styles. Some are more effective than others. For those who want to view some comments on other issues, for style and content, please have a look at the link below. Some comments are one or two sentences, and others extend for several pages. Length does not matter, but content does.
For the most effect, it is a good idea to consider the following format for a comment:
Use letterhead. When the letter is complete, scan it and attach the digital file to your comment.
Identify yourself and / or your organization, describe what you do or your experience. It is a good idea to thank the EPA for the opportunity to make comments. (They like reading this, even though they are required by law to accept comments). If you work for an employer who does not support your view, it is important to state that your views are your own and do not represent anyone else.
Organize your comments into paragraphs.
Use a form letter only if you must. It is far more effective to write a comment using your own words.
However, if someone else’s comment states what you wanted to say, it is fine to write and refer to the earlier comment, by name and date, and state your agreement with what was written. The agency appreciates that, as it reduces the number of words they must read.
It is important to know that the agency staff reads the comments, categorizes them, and keeps a total of how many comments were made in each category. So, the number of comments do count. Encourage your friends to make comments, too.
Make your statement/point in the paragraph, refer to actual data where possible, and give the citation or link. Tell them why you hold your view. Try to maintain a positive, reasonable tone, and if criticizing the EPA, tread gently. Point out the inconsistencies of their view compared to other respected publications, or to accepted methodologies.
It is a good idea to describe how you are affected, or will be affected, by this proposed rule.
Close by thanking the EPA for considering your view.
Sign your name (comments get much more serious consideration when signed).
The link to public comments on U.S. government issues:
I urge all readers to make teir opinions known to the EPA, some excerpts from my submission, sans photos are listed below.
=========================================
To: ghg–endangerment-docket@epa.gov
From: Anthony Watts
[address]
Re: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0171
Please find the following comments related to EPA’s April 24, 2009 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (EF).
These comments also address issues in the April 17, 2009 Technical Support Document (TSD) that includes many of the detailed references to science, data, and models used to justify comments in the Endangerment Finding.
Issue Summary
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.
During the past few years a team of more than 650 volunteers visually inspected and photographically documented more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found. We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
For example, here is a climate station of record located in a parking lot, at the University of Tucson, operated by the Atmospheric Sciences Department.
Above: official USHCN weather station, Atmospheric Science Dept. University of Arizona, Tucson. more on that station here. Photo: Warren Meyer
It follows that if Atmospheric Scientists at an institution of higher learning cannot measure temperature correctly, then there is little expectation that it will be elsewhere. In fact, that is what I found.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
Note that the graph above shows NOAA’s own adjustments to temperature over time.
Reference URL for the above graph from Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Below are my findings of the state of quality for the USHCN network of Stations:
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7C (about 1.2F) during the twentieth century.
My report is available in full as this PDF document here:
I request that it also be entered into the official record as well, as part of this document.
Consequently, this record should not be by the Administrator as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
The many problems with the surface temperature record that have been demonstrated both photographically and by a national census suggest that the supposed linkage between carbon dioxide levels and surface temperature is likely not correlated by global climate models that use the surface temperature record as data input or as a means of calibration.
All models that use this flawed data for validation must be rejected by the Administrator as non-compliant with the Federal Information Quality Act.
Specific Errors in the EF/TSD
EF.18898. column 3-18899.column 1
“Like global mean temperatures, U.S. air temperatures have warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century. According to official data from NOAA’s
National Climatic Data Center:
• U.S average annual temperatures are now approximately 1.25 °F (0.69 °C) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years The rate of warming for the entire period of record (1895–2008) is 0.13 °F/decade while the rate of warming increased to 0.58 °F/decade (0.32 °C/decade) for the period from 1979–2008.
• 2005–2007 were exceptionally warm years (among the top 10 warmest on record), while 2008 was slightly warmer than average (the 39th warmest year on record), 0.2 °F (0.1 °C) above the 20th century (1901–2000) mean.
• The last ten 5-year periods (2004– 2008, 2003–2007, 2002–2006, 2001–2005, 2000–2004, 1999–2003, 1998– 2002, 1997–2001, 1996–2000, and 1995– 1999), were the warmest 5-year periods in the 114 years of national records, demonstrating the anomalous warmth of the last 15 years.
TSD Executive Summary
“[OE 3] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C (1.3ºF) (±0.18°C) over the last 100 years. Eight of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.
“[OE 4] Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. Climate model simulations suggest natural forcing alone (e.g., changes in solar irradiance) cannot explain the observed warming.
“[OE 5] U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century; temperatures are now approximately 0.7°C (1.3°F) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Both the IPCC and CCSP reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated GHG concentrations. In the CCSP (2008g) report the authors find that for North America, “more than half of this warming [for the period 1951-2006] is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing of climate change.”
TSD.22-23
“Global Surface Temperatures
Surface temperature is calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea. Parts of the globe have no data, although data coverage has improved with time. The long-term mean temperatures are calculated by interpolating within areas with no measurements using the collected data available. Biases may exist in surface temperatures due to changes in station exposure and instrumentation over land, or changes in measurement techniques by ships and buoys in the ocean. It is likely that these biases are largely random and therefore cancel out over large regions such as the globe or tropics (Wigley et al., 2006). Likewise, urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends (Trenberth et al., 2007).
The following trends in global surface temperatures have been observed, according to the IPCC (Trenberth et al., 2007):
• Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ±0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906–2005) as shown by the magenta line in Figure 4.2. The warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures are 1998 and 2005, with 1998 ranking first in one estimate, but with 2005 slightly higher in the other two estimates. 2002 to 2004 are the 3rd, 4th and 5th warmest years in the series since 1850. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850. Temperatures in 2006 were similar to the average of the past 5 years.
• The warming has not been steady, as shown in Figure 4.2. Two periods of warming stand out: an increase of 0.35°C occurred from the 1910s to the 1940s and then a warming of about 0.55°C from the 1970s up to the end of 2006. The remainder of the past 150 years has included short periods of both cooling and warming. The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).
Comments
Supporting peer reviewed papers for my analysis of errors in the siting of USHCN climate monitoring stations include:
Yilmaz et al (PDF 2008 ) which cites temperature differentials of up to 11.79C between asphalt/concrete and grass. Grass is the preferred surface over which temperature should be measured according to World Meteological Organization (WMO) standards.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf
See the Climate Reference Network Site Handbook (National Climatic Data Center PDF 2002) including explanation of the CRN 1-5 rating system used by surfacestations.org
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
An online database of the weather stations comprising the U.S. Historical Climatoilogy Network that have been surveyed thus far is available online at http://gallery.surfacestations.org
Hanson Challenged:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/06/19/blankenship-challenges-hansen-to-global-warming-debate/
old construction worker (20:21:27) :
Ron de Haan (19:22:54)
‘The auction raised $104.2 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy and other programs in the 10 participating states, which include Rhode Island, according to RGGI Inc., which administers the program on the states’ behalf.’
Just tack it on to the cost of goods sold.
And you wonder why people and business are moving out of the RGGI area.
old construction worker,
Just wait untill the price hits 35 dollar or more.
NO TAX OR EMISSION RESTRICTIONS ON CO2, THE GAS OF LIFE (PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM)
[snip – the topic here is the EPA, not some mishmash language being lobbied, this is not a platform for such things. ] – Anthony
Yeah it’s amazing when you see things going onin Kalifornia where they literally cut off the water supply to about 85% or the farmers to save a minnow where by putting humane life behind that of a Minnow and turtles and who knows what is coming next. As for the major increases in Co2 in the last 10-20 years is to graph the increase of Co2 for there own purposes to show there really is GW when in fact the trends thay have been modeled form zround the world show otherwise. We are being Dupped on a daily basis and allowing it to happen right before our very eyes, WE as a republic need to take a stand and say enough is enough, gives us our money back that has been stolen and given to these groups of Enviromentalist who inly model the current Eviroment to back the EPA just to continue on with there research and feed the hand that feeds these unscrupulous people who refuse to actually work for a living or atleast do so in a truthful way !!!! A Minnow over 85% of farmers in Kalifornia, wheres the justice in this…. Will these groups and organization not be happy until all civilization is done away with and were back to the STONE AGES I’m not sure I understand and to top it all off there all Hipocrite. Show me a handful of Enviromentalist that was there clothes using a wash bd, read by candle lite, and store there food form there own gardens in a root cellar, and do not use a computure, or watch TV or listen to a Radio oh and last but not least either walk to work or ride their bikes and do not smoke !!!!! Someone show me where these do sayers are who wish to impose such regulation onto others but also chose to live by the motto of DO as I say, Not as I do.
Designating carbon dioxide as a polutant is ignorant and foolish. I could go on and on, but I work for a living.
I don’t understand why we never hear from the opposition on this matter. It seems all the media is in the tank on this and no one wants to hear what thousands of other sicentists, all more qualified than Al Gore, and only hear about the discussion is over. This is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American public since snake oil. BULL!
I don’t understand why we never hear from the opposition on this matter. It seems all the media is in the tank on this and no one wants to hear what thousands of other sicentists, all more qualified than Al Gore, have said. Over 34,000 scientists have signed a document stating their position on this hoax. Yet, all we hear about, the discussion is over. This is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American public since snake oil. BULL!
23 June is the last day to submit your views on CO2 regulation to the EPA. A simple way to voice your opinion is to click on this link … http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648096894b
… and type in your comment. You can even remain anonymous … though I expect providing a name will result in your comments being taken more seriously.
I submitted my opinion: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064809d4590
If you oppose CO2 regulation for reasons similar to mine, feel free to reference the report I provided as a “supporting document”. That may make the EPA more likely to read it! My position is similar to what you hear from many “deniers” with these twists:
1 IPCC forecasts (4 of them) have all been dramatically wrong. So wrong the implication is: it is impossible to take them seriously.
2 Climate models are compared (quite unfavorably) to the financial models that enabled the recent global financial meltdown.
3 President Eisenhower’s farewell speech warned of two major threats to democracy. One was the famous military-industrial-complex. The other was a scientific-technological elite. (No one remembers that one?) The envisioned threat was scientists (dependent on federal funding) would provide results desired by the government and researchers and politicians would take advantage of the public. This idea (which I have not seen elsewhere in this debate) is developed and documented; global warming is presented as the 1st manifestation of this threat to US democracy.
Anthony, please consider another post on the main page reminding your readers the EPA comment period ends 23 June 2009.
Pofarmer said:
“Now, indeed the AVG temp for may is the highest, at least since their easily accesible records started in 2000. HOWEVER IT”S NOT BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TEMPS. THE HIGH TEMPS ARE STATIC, IT’S BECAUSE OF WARMER LOWS.
I think this goes right in with the theory that clouds are a temperature control mechanism.
Can somebody PLEASE help out with this???????????”
My Reply:
You are right. I did an analysis on this some months ago after examining the CET records back to 1660 and posted it here. Winters are warmer than the LIA (not surprising!) but summers are generally no warmer so the mean average is shifted higher because there are not the lower temperatures to mitgate against them.
If you see this and respond I will see if I can dig the post out.
Tonyb
I got my comment submitted. I had a little difficulty I but finally figured things out. At http://www.regulations.gov one needs to search for the particular docket item and there is a chance you’ll end up commenting on someone else’s comment if your not careful.
For me, as a farmer, the issue is that global warming is a good thing (if you insist on believing in that way) and facing the inherent uncertainties of weather and climate we might as well look to managing the global climate in a way that is optimal for food production. Crop failures due to summer freezes are not an impossibility and the repercussions of crop failure would be far worse than anything that I’ve seen tossed about by the global doom by warming crowd.
Farmer Hank. Yep we have frost damage on wheat. Moisture corrects for heat damage. I see there is a lot of acreage for farming in the Northern parts of the souther Canadian provinces. Farmers keep records. Every year a Farmer compares his wheat harves in terms of yield but also dates. If the area is warming that means last frost is earlier. Harvests are not going earlier. You can plant an earlier variety of wheat that matures a little earlier but you can’t alter the fact that the season is not warming and the harvest is not earlier.
Here is what I, as a non-scientist citizen sent in. I think it is very important that the agency hears from the informed lay public.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit a comment on Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, the proposed public endangerment finding in regard to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
I am writing as a private citizen, I have no public office or position. My involvement with groups involved in one side or another of environmental issues is limited to a membership in The Nature Conservancy for a number of years and very large donations to that group and a past membership in the Sierra club. I have a law degree and an MBA and I currently work primarily as a mergers and acquisitions advisor in the health care industry. I believe it is particularly important for the EPA to solicit and consider the input and perspective of ordinary citizens on such a significant matter.
Although I am not a trained scientist, I have had a keen interest in science since childhood. I have subscribed to Scientific American for over thirty years and also subscribe to Nature and Science. I regularly read science books and I read a variety of online science information sources. I also have training in experimental methods and statistics. Several years ago I became interested in climate science and paleoclimatology. I am old enough to remember the articles regarding an impending ice age in the 1960s and the l970s, so when concerns were raised about a possible human-induced global warming, my curiousity was piqued and I have since read a wide variety of books and articles regarding the topic. I read not only popularized versions of the research but I increasingly seek the source articles published in technical journals. So I believe I have a relatively informed viewpoint and most importantly, a more detached and objective perspective than appears to exist among the various advocates in regard to this topic.
Many people will undoubtedly submit very detailed comments referring to various research in this area. I would like to briefly summarize a few thoughts and observations.
1. It appears to be the case that the earth has gone through multiple cycles of warming and cooling in the recent, in geological terms, past. These cycles have gone on well before humans arose on the planet and before humans engaged in activities which had the potential to significantly affect climate. These natural variations appear to be linked to variations in the earth’s orbit which affect the total amount of solar energy which reaches the planet and potentially to actual variations in solar energy output, the geographic configuration of continents and other features and other factors.
2. In the course of earth’s history, including the recent cooling and warming cycles, carbon dioxide levels have also apparently risen and fallen substantially. Carbon dioxide levels seem to have been higher than they are today in the past, but the earth cooled after those high levels and they have been lower than they are today and the earth still warmed. Given the inherent timing uncertainties in both the proxy temperature and proxy carbon dioxide records, it is unclear whether rising carbon dioxide levels preceded warming and whether falling carbon dioxide levels preceded cooling. In fact, it appears equally likely that rising carbon dioxide levels followed warming and falling carbon dioxide levels followed cooling. Given what we appear to know about the carbon cycle, either possibility could exist. A very recent research paper has shown fairly defiinitively that carbon dioxide levels did not fall before the most recent cooling episode.
3. The models in which carbon dioxide causes a temperature increase rely on positive feedbacks which are not supported by any actual research. That is not to say that these feedbacks don’t exist, but that there is no real-live experiments or studies which support or prove the existence of these feedbacks. This is a particular concern because negative feedbacks from rising carbon dioxide have also been postulated, although equally unproven. Given the uncertainties in the historical record of any correlation between rising or falling carbon dioxide levels and succeeding warming or cooling, and the lack of any experimental proof, relying on models would seem quite imprudent.
4. The earth is currently is one of the warming intervals between longer cooling periods. Based on past cycles we are likely nearing the end of this warming period. Warming, however, appears to have tended to continue to increase until a relatively abrupt transition to coooling. Given historical climate behavior, there is a strong possibility that any warming in the last century may be consistent with natural variation. In fact, the burden should be on those who believe it is not due to natural variation to prove that fact, given that natural variation appears so clearly in the historical record and the current warming is not inconsistent with other instances of natural variation in warming.
5. I have attempted to understand the various climate models used to project global warming. It is very difficult if not impossible to get the underlying equations, algorithms and code. This is an alarming situation if these models are being relied on in the setting of policy. The agency should demand that any models used in considering this issue be fully unveiled and available to the public for evaluation.
6. Global cooling periods are far worse for humanity than global warming eras. In fact, our current state of relatively advanced civilization is largely due to the most recent warming. It has facilitated the development of agriculture which has allowed a much higher standard of living and enabled urban living which created the environment for much greater sophistication in many human activities. The next cooling period will be devastating to human civilization. Perhaps our efforts would be best directed toward ensuring that we understood all the factors influencing climate and anticipating how we might address the cooling that is inevitably bearing down on us.
7. The various actions proposed to limit or reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have severe economic costs, particularly for poorer people and nations. The actions would reduce most people’s standard of living. These costs should not be imposed in the absence of firm, indisputable proof that carbon dioxide and other human emissions are responsible for the vast majority of any global warming which is or might occur.
8. Particulary alarming to me, given the very high regard in which I hold science and the scientific frame of mind, is the emotional tone which has been adopted in regard to this issue. Scientists are human and it would be foolish to think they are immune to the biases and emotions which affect human reasoning and actions. But a scientist should also know that they can understand their own biases and emotions and set them aside. Dispassionate research is critical if we are to have accurate facts upon which to base sound public policy. Unfortunately, it is apparent to me that many of the scientists involved in this field of research have lost that dispassionate objectivity, which makes their research highly suspect. The agency needs to take a critical look at the process by which climate research is being conducted, including whether funding is being objectively parceled out to examine all theories and whether various studies may have been tainted by researchers a priori beliefs.
The new administration has stated that it wants to restore scientific objectivity to public policy decision-making. There is no better opportunity to do that than this docket item, which is fraught with misleading and misused science. In light of the enormous consequences of action by the EPA, and the inadequate state of knowledge about how climate really works, the only prudent course of action for the agency is to delay any action on this docket and to seek funding to support truly independent and objective research to create more accurate models of likely future outcomes. Until such knowledge is attained, any action is likely to impose unwarranted costs on the American people and lead to actions which may actually exacerbate the effect of climate on our economy and other aspects of our lives. Thank you again for allowing comments and for taking my thoughts into consideration. I would also request that you allow me to testify at any public hearings the agency may hold on this topic. Thank you.
kevin roche
I read through your comment. Nicely done. I am very much with you on your item number 5. It would be so nice to see a good exposition of the basic mechanics of a climate model. Something that summarized the kinds of factors that are taken into account; perhaps a history of climate modeling; how estimates are made on various factors; how close the estimates are to real world values…. and most importantly what is left out.
I also read through Monckton’s offering which has a document ID of EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0700.1 . He does such a beautiful job of going for the jugular in the most cordial way. He makes The Team look like such a bunch of arrogantly lazy slobs….. which I guess is what they are.
Global surface warming has become a serious problem today.So every has to reduce the discharge of co2 like gases.
EPA granted the waiver, as reported in Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-waiver30-2009jun30,0,1077405.story