EPA's CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate

– Murkowski’s disapproval resolution would essentially throw out the process by which the EPA found that greenhouse gases endanger public health, Boxer said. –
I recall there was some discussion about the process used by the EPA at CA last year. Steve indicated that ”[the] EPA has to carry out some required processes in order to use a scientific assessment by an external party (mentioning international bodies). One of the requirements is that external party has to submit the assessment to EPA, together with the peer review record, following which EPA officials are obliged to evaluate the material to ensure that if complies with EPA standards.” There is some doubt as to whether the required process was actually followed. It is unclear if an external party actually submitted AR4. Perhaps the process used and any findings based on it should be “essentially thrown out”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/23/climate-audit-submission-to-epa/

gtrip (18:41:16) :
“She still doesn’t cut to the chase. Is it impossible for any public figure to just plain out say that man made global warming is not a real problem?”
She may not yet know that, but even if she does, saying it would dramatically reduce the chances of her success with this, because she needs to appeal to those who do believe it. They can be confronted later. If she doesn’t know it, she seems intelligent enough to accept it when shown the evidence.

‘They requested that EPA Admin Lisa Jackson conduct a review of the information the EPA used in their endangerment finding, and that she report to Congress as the whether the DQA was violated. …’
Sounds like Penn state investigating MM, East Anglia investing Phil Jones, or the IPCC investigating climategate leaks. These are like investigating claims against yourself — they’re all conflicts of interest!

The number one problem is jobs. This is part of the cause they borrow trillions.
The Cap and trade bill is scheduled to kill several million more jobs. The EPA regs can kill a million jobs without the cap and trad bill.
We must kill all CO2 producing animals to end production of CO2
If we don’t we at least must kill the wild animals before they kill humans.
I am a farmer and see they are on one hand terrified about extinction of species but do want to tax ag animals and let wild animals rule. Joe Romm on Climate progress is all upset on this. He hates women apparently the way he attacks Palin Lisa and Landrieau. But yes the EPA needs to be punished. They are the threat to society and civilization.
The job killing portion doesn’t address the cost of the bill to poor and children.
The bill will bring some of the sneaky moves out in the public.

D Caldwell (17:03:38)
To [re]quote one commenter over at Hot Air:
“Wow! Amazing how right wing some democrats can get when they get a glimpse of their own tombstone, huh?”
Elections do have consequences.

Anthony: If you think she is taking the right approach, how would you recommend that people indicate their support of her effort? Your website has a substantial following – perhaps you should set out a clear path for people to follow in this matter. It could be as simple as providing some appropriate email contacts/addresses.

Wasn’t the EPA finding based entirely on the IPCC “science”?
Given the well-deserved and self-inflicted problems that seem to keep popping up with the IPCC, it would seem a simple matter to overturn the EPA’s ruling.
Given the well-deserved and self-inflicted problems that seem to keep popping up with AGW’s advocates in Congress, it would seem a simple matter to get rid of them and their taxpayer funded boondoggles to Copenhagen!
If Obama and his AGW collaborators want to go on this crusade either by proxy/EPA or direct legislation, with 10%+ unemployment their majority will be gone long before we have an ice-free Arctic.
Bye bye Barbara Botoxer!
P.S. to old salt. Pamela Gray is a frequent guest and commenter to this site and I have no problem with her comments even when I don’t agree with them. While she sometimes takes contrary views I find her arguments are generally well-constructed (and at times very funny). I certainly don’t consider her a troll (and apparently the moderator didn’t either). If you know her and it was in good fun, then excuse my intrusion into your inside joke. If not, you might consider an apology for your own comment that added even less than hers….
P.P.S. I’m a white, conservative, evangelical, Republican AGW skeptic who is happy to share my faith (and thoughts about climate) with others but who generally tries to keep faith and politics separated. That’s mainly because I don’t want to open the door to others’ faiths influencing my government in ways that run very counter to my own beliefs (ref. the cult of AGW).

as i’ve not been able to access Xinhua in China for months, it was amusing to have the following open instantly; therefore i’ve pasted all the text.
22 Jan: Xinhua China: NASA research finds last decade was warmest on record
A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds that January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record and the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) said Thursday in a press release.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years –1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 — for the second warmest on record.
Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, scientists find.
In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.
The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-01/22/c_13146524.htm
the comments by readers are not buying freedman’s attack on coleman. do read them.
they include this one from freedman:
“Steve114z: You have a fair point, although I disagree with your assessment of the article. It’s hard to get around the fact that Coleman’s documentary was so misleading and erroneous that it actually cast doubt on the analysis in question. I acknowledged that, despite this, there may be some truth to the analysis, however, although NOAA and NASA dispute that. We will be covering this story as it unfolds.”
Washington Post: Andrew Freedman: Capital Weather Gang Blog: John Coleman’s climate change conspiracy theory
A new NASA temperature analysis to be officially released this week shows that 2009 tied with 2007 for the second warmest year in the 130 years of global thermometer records. The analysis, which was distributed by top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and published on the realclimate.org Web site on Sunday, also shows that 2009 was the warmest year on record for the Southern Hemisphere.
In a separate analysis, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) found that 2009 tied with 2006 for the fifth warmest year on record. The two government centers use different data analysis methods, which accounts for the differences between the findings.
However, according to a new one-hour local TV special from San Diego, hosted by KUSI-TV’s chief meteorologist John Coleman, both of the 2009 temperature summaries are fatally flawed. Coleman’s show trumpets a new report that alleges that federal climate agencies have been manipulating climate data for years in order to show more significant warming than has actually been occurring.
“When you see a news report that the government has found that a certain month or season of the year was the warmest in history or that five of the warmest years on record were in the last decade, don’t believe it. Those reports were based on manipulated data,” Coleman states. “It hurts me to say this, but our nation’s primary climate data agencies, part of our U.S. government, are lying to us.” ..
The report that Coleman features was funded by the Science and Public Policy Institute, and conducted by computer programmer E. Michael Smith and Joe D’Aleo, a meteorologist turned ardent climate skeptic who founded the skeptic web site icecap.us.
Smith and D’Aleo’s work purports to show that when they process global temperature data, the main U.S. climate centers filter out cooler weather stations and add in warmer ones, among other techniques, to show more warming.
“We can only surmise that it was done to show more warming,” D’Aleo tells Coleman about the alleged manipulation.
Both NCDC and NASA dispute this assertion…
Theoretically, the analysis could have some merit to it. But the fact that it was first revealed as “breaking news” in Coleman’s documentary, which any high school Earth science teacher would give a failing grade to, does not lend it much support.
NCDC posted an explanation of its temperature analysis methods on its Web site on Jan. 15, and NASA’s methods are also posted online.
Flimsy arguments
There are many credible arguments against the conclusions of climate scientists and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate science, like any branch of science, is far from “settled.” But Coleman’s program, which you can watch online in four installments, offers nothing more than a loose collection of long-debunked arguments against the conclusion that human emissions of greenhouse gases are helping to cause global temperatures to increase, and features a parade of climate change skeptics who portray climate science as a giant conspiracy.
There is healthy skepticism, and then there is paranoia.
Coleman pins the bulk of his scientific argument on the fact that, according to historical records of temperature change and atmospheric composition, there is a lag between the rise and fall of carbon dioxide and the rise and fall of temperatures. But it is well known in the climate science community that carbon dioxide can act at various times as either a climate feedback or a climate forcing mechanism — that is, it can amplify changes already underway, or instigate them in the first place. This has been explored in numerous studies and has been explained by a wide variety of sources, including this 2007 piece at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, this page at NOAA, and Spencer Weart’s comprehensive “Discovery of Global Warming.”
Yet Coleman still cites the feedback/forcing issue as evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause climate change.
“This is it, the basic scientific failure in the Al Gore IPCC global warming case,” Coleman states.
Furthermore, Coleman claims he is being apolitical in his criticism of climate science, which is bizarre considering how overtly political his documentary actually is. In one moment, Coleman says the program is not about advocating a political view, yet in the next he says the number one reason for exploring the “other side” to climate science is because the EPA has classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and this, Coleman says, “will lead to major new taxes and fees…”
“The EPA ruling may have a major impact on your way of life,” he warns viewers.
The second reason Coleman gives for speaking out? Because the Senate may soon vote on cap and trade legislation, which he says will raise the costs of “everything that’s part of our lives today.”
The third reason for his apolitical approach to climate coverage is also clearly political: United Nations negotiations on what he terms a climate change “tax treaty.”
In this era of decreasing science coverage on TV newscasts, a full hour of television time devoted to climate change is a rare and precious commodity. It’s unfortunate that Coleman so thoroughly wasted the opportunity.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/01/a_new_nasa_temperature_analysi.html

FYI, Mary Laundrieu (D) Louisiana is a co-sponsor. I am a very conservative Republican, but in order to save our country from this insanity, we must embrace and encourage the few sane Democrats still left.

Sorry, I forgot to include my link.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/sen_mary_landrieu_working_to_c.html

This is off-topic, but Bill Gates has some podcasts and other material on Climate Change at http://www.gatesnotes.com