This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).
The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files.
The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]
read the complete article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
Here is an e-mail I just recieved;
ROSES-10 Amendment 4: Final text for Appendix A.24: Enhancing the Capability of Computational Earth System Models and NASA Data for Operation and Assessment. 4:12 pm (2 hours ago)
Final text for Appendix A.24: Enhancing the Capability of Computational Earth System Models and NASA Data for Operation and Assessment.
This solicitation offers investigators an opportunity to analyze, assess, and increase the impact of NASA data in research and operational environments, particularly in the areas of weather prediction, climate projection assessment, and global carbon cycle modeling in anticipation of carbon management regulations. This solicitation seeks three areas of proposals: (a) Acceleration of Operational Use of Research Data including Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA), (b) data for IPCC climate projection assessment, and (c) computational support of Earth system modeling.
Amendment 4 releases the final version of the text of Appendix A.24, which replaces the draft text in its entirety. Notices of Intent to are due July 15, 2010 and Proposals are due September 17, 2010.
On or about May 7, 2010, this Amendment to the NASA Research Announcement “Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) 2010” (NNH10ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research opportunity homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select “Solicitations” then “Open Solicitations” then “NNH10ZDA001N”). You can now track amendments, clarifications and corrections to ROSES and subscribe to an RSS feed at: http://nasascience.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2010
Questions concerning this program may be addressed to Tsengdar Lee, Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001; Telephone: (202) 358-0860; E-mail: tsengdar.j.lee@nasa.gov.
Steve in SC says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:48 am
You people keep mentioning the “corruption of the IPCC”.
Someday you will realize that that corruption is dwarfed and enabled by the corruption in the U.S. Government.
plm – OK, so both are huge and both corrupt. At least in the U.S. we still have at least the framework of “checks and balances” to occasionally “correct” dangerous variations to recognized fundamental human weaknesses (hopefully our next election will do that!), while the U.N. has nothing of the kind and while it has been designed to accommodate unchecked mob democracy with financially and militarily powerful disfunctional committees. It appears to me that the U.S. will continue its’ trend to become completely subordinate to the U.N. and simply construct a larger, more corrupt, dictatorial bureaucracy that will irresponsibly endanger everyone through ideological whims and disfunction. Corruption in the U.S. we can still (?) deal with, although it can be painful. Corruption under the U.N./IPCC is voluntary and no recourse. Does the U.N. sound good to you? Not here – get your Senators to keep/get the UN/IPCC out of our policies!
Got news for you – the IPCC 2020 (if it is ever written) would have even more laughs written into it!
Credible alternatives to the IPCC 2007? It seems like you’re looking for a silver bullet for a non-problem. The IPCC 2007 is as ridiculous as a smutty Pachauri novel and no alternative to anything except sanity. How about some good old fashioned sanity, hard work and clear thinking about real and/or recognized matters like re-creating a healthy economy where we can be best prepared for whatever climatic calamity could befall us and not limiting us to picking one unlikely (CAGW) scenario and creating our economy around a “fool’s bet” for political purposes.
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am
So what? It doesn’t change the essence, neither does the fact that IPCC 2020 will
laugh at many things in IPCC 2007. No credible alternative has been presented, Pielke Sr. talks about clouds – but how does it work, could one see a graph of the mechanism?
plm – Pielke and clouds? Look, he’s not selling them as the do all/end all where you have to go all in or die, and try prove him wrong. On the other hand try to prove CO2 CAGW right – with your own money, on your own time. That hasn’t been done, yet even while wasting billions (trillions?) in tax money and threatens to crash the world economies, killing millions of innocent souls for what purpose – their own good?
Look bub, get out of my kids pockets and my votes on Roger, Sr.!
Hey, guess what Mikael, try: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/pielke-sr-on-revkins-question/ , fresh off the WUWT educational blog.
R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm
New major report by the National Academy of Sciences supporting the science behind climate change:
http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html
But of course, dear Lord Monckton knows better than the two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates who are behind this report
First comment to this linked story is interesting:
90% of NAS members did not sign it.
mikael pihlström says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:57 am
Mikael, thanks for your thoughts. While the IPCC is a passable overview of the mainstream view of climate science, climate science is a new field. Unfortunately, it contains many claims based on newspaper reports, student theses, and Greenpeace and WWF propaganda puff pieces.
The most egregious exaggerations in the IPCC report are the claims of certainty, which are not based on science at all. The amount we don’t know about climate far outweighs the amount we know, but you wouldn’t get that impression from the IPCC reports.
If you want to get a real look at the underbelly of the IPCC, you should take a look at how they treat the reviewers comments … which generally is to ignore them. Here is a discussion of one part of the IPCC reports, one among many, many more equally egregious.
Next, the most “credible alternative” is that we are simply looking at the natural variation in temperature which has gone on for millions of years. See my post “Congenital Climate Abnormalities” for more details.
Regarding the “how does [the clouds] work”, see my post “The Thermostat Hypothesis“.
Please let us know what you find wrong in those posts …
There are two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?
255 base 10 is 11111111 base 2, takes up eight bits, an unsigned 8-bit byte. And this is as far as they’ve went.
This indicates low processing power, likely with low memory capacity, very old ways of processing information.
Obviously they need to modernize. Time to get up to speed with the modern advanced concepts!
R. Gates at 2:22 pm said:
Being a 25% skeptic…. I had a girl tell me one time she was 25% pregnant… or was it 50%? In either case, I didn’t believe her either. She did eventually have 7 kids.
I think it was the same reason why the stratosphere…. cools…. then warms…. then cools…. Hey, i’ve never claimed to understand women’s cycles or Venus!
But as for the stratosphere of Earth cooling – less ozone, increased libido.
Opps, I meant “albedo” —- I was thinking about HER, again.
Until Republicans gain control of the House and the Senate science isn’t going to matter. When has science ever meant anything to the political left? Al Gore is from the political left. When has science ever mattered to him? There is too much money at stake for these people to let science stand in their way.
Line up the scientists with their graphs, and studies, and data. The Democrats will not listen. And I’m not all that sure Republicans are going to listen either. So let the Tea Party rise with Sarah Palin!
R. Gates says:
May 6, 2010 at 2:22 pm (Edit)
Well, what seems to have happened is that there is stratospheric cooling after volcanic eruptions, but in between, none … my question is, why is there so little stratospheric cooling?
Note that, other than immediately after volcanic eruptions, there is no stratospheric cooling at all … why is that? Another of the hundreds of unanswered questions about the climate.
R Gates,
The answer is cleaner air, less volcanoes, fall of the Soviet Union, etc.
The question is not whether more long wave radiation is trapped in the troposphere by more CO2 or not, as there is good evidence that it is. The question is whether the energy so trapped is changing the global temperature in a manner that affects climate. Why do ice ages start? Did the CO2 that was warming the earth suddenly disappear? Being able to prove that one variable in an equation of many variables, many of whom are not even known, is the variable controlling the result of the equation is a difficult thing to do.
When the models see their predictions validated by legitimate temperature measurements, they will begin to have credibility. When the models agree with each other, one goes back to their method of validation. As I believe Dr. Hansen was quoted, it got the same answer as the other models so it must be ok.
the Select Committee on Energy Independence and GLOBAL WARMING” – can’t we start off with something a slightly more neutral?
Spain’s green jobs disaster. Wind farms, other green energy sources caused electricity rates in Spain to skyrocket. To make electricity more affordable for the public, the Spanish government applied subsidies. Now the whole house of cards is collapsing amid a high-energy blame game. Glad it’s happening there, not here (yet).
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/05/obamas-spanish-disaster/
If the global financial crisis resumes, as seems to be happening, that would be a good reason for politicians to at least defer imposing new costs on the economy.
toby said:
“My God, is the fake member of the House of Lords the best you could come up with?”
As an hereditary peer he is hardly a fake!
It isn’t just annoying, Toby, that you offer an offhand derogatory remark about someone which has nothing whatever to do with that person’s point of view. but you can’t even get that right.
I am utterly bored with this kind of immature drivel.
George E. Smith: May 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
(In reply to toby’s assertion that Lord Monckton was a “fake member of the House of Lords”…)
And I’m not aware of him ever having claimed to be a Member of the House of Lords; well you are the first I have heard or seen, actually claim that he is; when you branded him as a fake.
Lord Monckton being a “fake Member” of the HoL is a fairly common theme on the warmista sites. I’ve seen it referenced by most of The Usual Suspects™ and, from what I could glean from the rhetoric, seems to be based on what someone’s second cousin, three times removed, said during a Reply-All e-mail discussion of of the synopsis of a report of an analysis of an interview with a reporter who made an observation during Senate hearings in which Lord Monckton may or may not have appeared sometime between 1965 and 2053.
We need climate skeptics here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/05/breaking-climate-scientists-cleared-of-malpractice-by-panel/#comments
to counter the liberal whitewash put out by Phil Plait and his warmist allies. Join the debate and destroy their BS!
you know what a expert is ,a drip under pressure . Lord Monckton would make mince meat out of these so called experts
For those interested, the staff report is at
http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/Corr_Oversight/05062010EPA_Endangerment_Finding_Minority_Staff_Report.pdf
Ref – It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“Until Republicans gain control of the House and the Senate science isn’t going to matter. When has science ever meant anything to the political left? Al Gore is from the political left. When has science ever mattered to him? There is too much money at stake for these people to let science stand in their way. Line up the scientists with their graphs, and studies, and data. The Democrats will not listen. And I’m not all that sure Republicans are going to listen either. So let the Tea Party rise with Sarah Palin!”
_______________________
What the good ol’ USA needs is exactly what the Brits just gave themselves, gridlock. It’s a crying shame that the Tea Party isn’t anything more than a bunch of colonials dressed up like Indians (aka Native Americans) throwing a symbolic cup of something into Boston Harbor. The problem problem is that once you elect someone from either Party they get brainwashed and are worthless for two full years. The problem problem problem is the idiots in charge of the two bloody parties that we don’t elect.
PS: Why don’t we call people from India, ‘Indias’? It would save a lot of ink and keystrokes.
Hopefully there is still enough interest in this thread for the following link to be read and commented on:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/indicators_technical_info.pdf
I had posted this to Anthony within the “Tips and Notes” section of WUWT last week, but it best fits within this thread. After reading the attached, I found that the predominate sources for the EPA endangerment finding are from internal USEPA or other governmental research resources, but are predominately from the IPCC. In my my opinion, this document could best be used by those who are wishing to discount, discredit, or otherwise blow out of the water the EPA endarement finding for CO2. Opinions??? (as if readers of this website have opinions, what?)
Monckton is actually quite brilliant in the US Congress Committee hearings, holding his own admirably against a stack of academics and policy advocates.
Don’t rely on the spin reports , see & judge for yourself for yourself at:-
http://globalwarming.cachefly.net/hearings/2010-05-06ClimateScience.mp4
~ 340 MB
Why not include a link to the official Sensenbrenner report in the original post?
Here it is:
http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/Corr_Oversight/05062010EPA_Endangerment_Finding_Minority_Staff_Report.pdf