US: Yet more bad science

Double standards

It is an ugly theme that runs through the consensus camp – proper scientific processes corrupted in order to get the right result.

You will recall that the US Environmental Protection Agency declared CO2 to be a “dangerous pollutant”, thereby enabling it to regulate emissions by the back door with no Congressional approval. Now it appears that one of the key scientific reports on which that conclusion was based was not subjected to those proper, rigorous processes and that “corners were cut” in order to rush it through.

Internal investigators at the Environmental Protection Agency said the agency failed to follow peer-review guidelines when developing a key scientific document that underpins its greenhouse-gas regulations.

The findings are likely to stoke Republican opposition to the EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases and could arm industry groups that are fighting the regulations in court. One prominent Republican is already calling for congressional hearings on the issue.

EPA said it “disagree[s] strongly” with the findings. An EPA spokeswoman said the findings focus on “wonky” government processes and do nothing to cast doubt on the underlying science.

The document in question was developed by the EPA and used to support its 2009 “endangerment finding.” That finding concluded that greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—pose a threat to public health. It paved the way for the EPA to begin developing greenhouse-gas standards for refiners, power plants and other large emitters.

In a report released Wednesday, the EPA’s inspector general said the agency didn’t follow federal guidelines for peer review when developing a 200-page scientific document to support its findings. While EPA had the document reviewed by a dozen federal climate-change scientists, the agency did not publicly report the results of the review, the inspector general says. (source)

But that’s OK isn’t it, because the consensus boys don’t have to bother with tedious inconveniences like proper peer-review. Just ask the IPCC. Anyway, they can rely on “pal-review” if they get stuck. And the hypocrisy of the EPA is breathtaking, casually brushing aside the criticisms as a trivial irrelevance. Can you imagine the outrage if this had been a sceptical report? Double standards exemplified.

Comments

  1. Obama has used the EPA to do the same as a carbon tax without most people realising it. Follow the money.

  2. The Australian governments Parliamentary Library website states that, “A carbon tax is a tax on energy sources which emit carbon dioxide. It is a pollution tax …”

    The Australian governments Climate Change website states that, “The Australian Government is strongly committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution. ”

    Yet nowhere on the Australian governments National Pollutant Index website will you find ‘carbon dioxide’ or ‘carbon pollution’ in the list of 93 substances that have been identified as important because of their possible health and environmental effects. Unless of course they’re going to introduce legislation in the carbon tax bill.

    As usual, it’s all politics and no science!

  3. Here is an obvious answer; how many Statist Parasites are on the Public payroll – Now use Mathematics and Apply Exponential growth of parasitism; Australia, probable 40 years, anywhere else in the world, Hundreds of years; Ok now How many Statist parasites on the gravy train today Feasting at present, exponential grow of past trough snorting; Now how much is the actual castings.
    Now the question looks much different than a scientific sounding scamming, it is scamming without scientific fact or anything remotely resembling Ratiocination;
    So what must it be then?

  4. it’s not Obama………..it’s the CFR and the UN. they need to violate the USA constitution to enact the corperate constitution “officially” over the citizens who are not yet aware, that their country is no longer being run as a country, but rather, a corperation……… the worlds largest in fact…… the bilderbergs run the worlds NGO’s and charities, and the red-cross/red-swaztika is THE BIGGEST INTERNATIONAL FRONT GROUP in the world…….oh, and did I mention they own it too? Philanthropy is the “claok of invisibility”, and those who wear it, are those who intend on turning you into fertaliser, and in a hurry!

  5. “carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—pose a threat to public health”. I’m sorry but NASA [the organistation that all greens refer to as god] has stated: “In fact, atmospheric gases are often divided up into the major, constant components and the highly variable components, as listed below:
    Nitrogen (N2) 78.08%
    Oxygen (O2) 20.95%
    Argon (Ar) 0.93%
    Neon, Helium, Krypton 0.0001%

    Constant Components. Proportions remain the same over time and location.
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.038%
    Water vapor (H20) 0-4%
    Methane (CH4) trace
    Sulfur dioxide (SO2) trace
    Ozone (O3) trace
    Nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N2O) trace

    Although both nitrogen and oxygen are essential to human life on the planet, they have little effect on weather and other atmospheric processes. The variable components, which make up far less than 1 percent of the atmosphere, have a much greater influence on both short-term weather and long-term climate. For example,
    variations in water vapor in the atmosphere are familiar to us as relative humidity.
    Water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and SO2 all have an important property: they absorb heat emitted by the earth and thus warm the atmosphere, creating what we call the “greenhouse effect.” Without these so-called greenhouse gases, the surface of the earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler – too cold for life to exist as we know it. Though the greenhouse effect is sometimes portrayed as a bad thing, trace amounts of gases like CO2 warm our planet’s atmosphere enough to sustain life”. So can someone please tell me when the world’s scientists suddenly decided that CO2 was a killer!!!!!!!

  6. The EPA didn’t follow it’s own guidelines?
    Perhaps we need a “Clean EPA Act”?

    Inhofe has established that the EPA didn’t follow procedures, and has established that the committee for which he is the ranking minority member has jurisdiction. The Chairman of the committee in Barbara Boxer. She will likely try to kill any attempt at having hearing, but given the OIG report, it could be hard for her to do so.
    In the OIG report, EPA indicates that they relied heavily on the IPCC. Inhofe submitted questions about the IPCC procedures and EPA answers those questions in the report. What’s interesting is the Inhofe asked a couple of questions regarding Climategate, and EPA’s answers are clearly inadequacy. If there are committee hearings (and there almost certainly will be), Inhofe has created a predicate to bring Climategate into scope. It seems nearly certain to me that Inhofe will issue a congressional subpoena to gets Mann’s emails, and no court in the land could stand in the way.

    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.

  7. The IAC Review of IPCC’s processes and procedures available at

    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

    is the most damning official report I have ever seen. Gleaning input from IPCC participants, IAC documented the following viz.
    political interference, lack of transparency, biased treatment of genuinely contentious issues, failure to respond to critical review comments, vague statements unsupported by evidence, reference to materials which have not been peer-reviewed or critically evaluated, poor handling of uncertainty, and a total lack of any policy to preclude conflict of interest.

    How much more evidence is required to demonstrate IPCC’s outright corruption of the scientific method? IPCC has been given free reign to cherry-pick whatever ‘evidence’ needed to spport the agendas of the sponsor governments whilst ignoring/excluding any evidence to the contrary.

    Re: IPCC’s poor handling of uncertainty

    Just have a look at Professor Curry’s take on uncertainty in climate science

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/uncertainty-monster-mit1.pdf

    and yet from all this we get “………..very likely……..” from IPCC?

  8. so changing the rules to influence an outcome?? humm…but obama is running for re-election next year, no new laws or regulations will be passed until afterwards…

  9. In 1961 the official CO2 component was also considered a variable 260-400ppm. 380-90 would have been considered normal had it been measured at that then so why isn’t it now?

    In fact the official 1C per 260ppm plus feedback equation for CO2 is half way played, the increase has been no more than .5C since it increased by 50%, therefore enough has increased to demonstrated a lack of positive water vapour feedback. The IPCC official safe increase is 2C therefore their case is dead, over, finito Benito, a dead parrot.

Trackbacks

  1. […] US: Yet more bad science Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

%d bloggers like this: