# EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean

Air Act

Volume 2: Issues Raised by
Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division

Washin g ton

, D.C.

1TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 2.0 Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC.................................................................6

2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermine IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment ........................................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Overview................................................................................................................. ...6 2.1.2 Accuracy of Statement on Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level..................8 2.1.3 Validity of Himalayan Glacier Projection .................................................................9

2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses .......................................12 2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, and African Mountain Snow Impacts..............................20 2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rainforest Dieback Projection ................................................21 2.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection ..............................................23 2.1.8 Summary..................................................................................................................33 2.2 Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Age nda and Is Not Objective and Impartial...............34

2.2.1 Overview................................................................................................................. .34 2.2.2 Background..............................................................................................................3 4 2.2.3 Responses to Arguably New Object ions Raised by the Petitioners.........................39

2.2.3.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Aut horship and Reviewer Roles Among

IPCC Personnel ...............................................................................................39

2.2.3.2 Allegations That Citing One’s Ow n Papers Compromises Objectivity ...........46

2.2.3.3 Allegations That IPCC Is Biased .....................................................................48

2.2.3.4 Allegations That IPCC Lead Autho rs Forced Consensus and Suppressed Dissenting Views ..............................................................................................57 2.2.4 Responses to Allegations Based on Information That Is Not New .........................65

2.2.4.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Co llaborations Among IPCC Authors ..............65

2.2.4.2 Allegations Regarding Insufficient P eer Review Processes for the IPCC .......67

2.2.4.3 Allegations That IPCC Authors Manipulated Deadlines for New

Literature .........................................................................................................68

2.2.4.4 Allegations Regarding the IPCC’s Use of Gray Literature .............................71 2.2.5 Summary.................................................................................................................. 73

References..............................................................................................................................................75

3ACRONYMS °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder AMS American Meteorological Society AOGCM Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report BOM Australian Bureau of Meteorology

CH 4 methane

cm centimeter CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CRU Climatic Research Unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FOIA Freedom of Information Act GHCN Global Historical Climatology Network GHG greenhouse gases GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) GSL Global Snow Laboratory (Rutgers University) IAC InterAcademy Council IEA Institute of Economic Analysis

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IJC International Journal of Climatology IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IQA Information Quality Act LIA Little Ice Age MET United Kingdom Meteorological Office

MWP Medieval Warm Period NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCDC National Climatic Data Center NIWA National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research NMS National Meteorological Station

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council

NSIDC U.S. National and Snow and Ice Data Center ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency RMS Risk Management Solutions RTC Response to Comments RTP Response to Petitions SAB Scientific Advisory Board SALR saturated adiabatic lapse rate TSD Technical Support Document

4UAH University of Alabama–Huntsville UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

UHI urban heat island UK United Kingdom USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USHCN United States Histor ical Climatology Network

W/m 2 watts per meter squared WMO World Meteorological Organization WWR World Weather Reports

52.0 Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC

2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermine IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment

2.1.1 Overview

Several petitioners (Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Competitive Enterprise Institu te, the Ohio Coal Association, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation) contend that alle ged errors and/or unsupported findings in IPCC reports demonstrate that the sc ience on which the Administrator relied for the Endangerment Finding is uncertain and/or not credible. We ha ve examined each specific instance of error, alleged error, and/or alleged unsupported statem ent in the voluminous IPCC report and we find that the evidence cited by petitione rs does not support this conclusion.

In reviewing the information provided by petitioners, EPA has determined that most—if not all—of the alleged erro rs and/or unsupported statements highlighted by petitioners are not relevant, not truly erroneous or unsupported, an d/or inconsequential to the Administrator’s Finding. In many cases, the petitioners’ interpre tation of both the alleged error (or alleged unsupported statement) and its implications is not supported by the evidence provided. Clearly, the charge that there are or might be errors or unsupported statements in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is serious, and we agre e with petitioners that such claims merit thorough review. EPA has done such a review; we find that the documented errors in the AR4 are not significant, and do not call into questi on the fundamental and broad evidence on which the Endangerment Finding rests. Moreover, the o ccurrence of the few documented errors in a study the size of the IPCC report is not unexpected and does not call into question the credibility of the entire report a nd all of its findings.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Ag ency (PBL) conducted its own independent assessment of the regional chapters (9 through 16) in Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4, where many of the errors, alleged errors, an d/or alleged unsupported statements have been identified. The report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a) finds “no significant errors” in summary conclusions, though it notes that “p rovenance of summary statements needs to become more transparent in future reports.”

PBL (2010a) also states that “examples of ne gative impacts dominate at summary level,” indicating that the IPCC selected a “risk-oriented ” approach in communicating to policymakers. The report states:

The PBL subscribes to the importance of an approach that highlights what may go wrong under unmitigated climate change, but Wo rking Group II Report lacked a clear explanation of the choice of approach and its consequences. Alternatively, it could be argued that policymakers should be presented with a complete picture in the Summary for Policymakers, not just with negative examples (without sugge sting that potential positive effects cancel out potential effects).

6While we cited the IPCC Working Group II Summ ary for Policym akers in the Endangerment Technical Support Document (TSD), we relied most heavily on information from the full chapters in the Working Group II report, specifically Chapter 14 on North America, as well as other assessment literature such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

assessment Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Karl et al., 2009). The Administrator considered both the positive and negative effects of climate change, as the Endangerment Finding states (Section I.A.):

The Administrator is using her judgment, base d on existing science, to weigh the threat for each of the identifiable risks, to weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and ultimately to assess whether these risks and effects, when viewed in total, endanger public health or welfare.

In addition, the Administrator found endangerment based on impacts in the United States alone, with international impacts providing some supporting information, as the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D):

EPA is not considering interna tional effects to determine whether the health and welfare of the public in a foreign country is e ndangered. Instead, EPA’s consideration of international effects for purposes of determ ining endangerment is limited to how those international effects impact the health and welfare of the U.S. population.

The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Admini strator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.

Despite its few criticisms of th e IPCC, PBL (2010a) concludes:

Our findings do not contradict the main conc lusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change . There is ample observation evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at hi gher global average temperatures.

This conclusion is very consistent with th e conclusion the Administrator reached in the Endangerment Finding, after weighing the balance of evidence.

This section responds to the major arguments of the petitioners on the significance of alleged errors and/or unsupported statements in the IPCC reports, and assesses the implications of these errors and/or unsupported statements for the credib ility and reliability of the major findings and

conclusions of the IPCC and other assessment literature.

72.1.2 Accuracy of Statement o n Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level

Comment (2-1) : Peabody Energy and the State of Texas contend th at the IPCC erroneously stated (in Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4) that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, whereas the actual number is much lower according to Dutch materials (26%).

Response (2-1) : The statistic quoted in the IPCC AR4 is inaccurate. When this error was identified, PBL (2010b) published a correction:

In the 2007 IPCC report by the Working Gr oup 2 (Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) a mistake has entered the text that was supplied by the

Netherlands Environmental Asse ssment Agency, regarding th e risks of flooding for the Netherlands. In the chapter on Europe, on pa ge 547, it says that 55 per cent of the Netherlands is below sea level (‘The Nether lands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level ri se and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level’). This should have read that 55 per cent of th e Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below s ea level, and 29 per ce nt is susceptible to river flooding. Examples of the latter are the near floodings, in the mid-1990s, of areas along the rivers Meuse and Waal – ar eas that are well above sea level.

The IPCC agrees that this statisti c is incorrect in the AR4, and al so notes that the same mistake was made by other reputable groups (Reuters, 2010). For example, the IPCC—in a written statement provided to Reuters—indi cated that a report from the Du tch Ministry of Transport had stated “‘about 60%’ of the country is below s ea level,” and referred to a European Commission study saying “about half” (Reuters , 2010). As noted by the IPCC statement, the error was not made by authors of the AR4, but originated with PBL, which supplied the text. To correct the mistake, the IPCC published an official erratum (IPCC, 2010d):

2) Page 547. Section 12.2.3. Line 20: Delete “below sea level” and replace with “at risk flooding”.

The IPCC was further quoted as saying (Reuters , 2010): “The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated inform ation remains consistent with the overall

conclusions.”

In its independent report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), PBL, which was responsible for th e error, states:

We acknowledge that this error was not th e fault of the IPCC (Coordinating) Lead

Authors or Co-Chairs. The error was made by a Contributing Author from the PBL, and the (Coordinating) Lead Authors [of the IP CC] are not to blame for relying on Dutch information provided by a Dutch agency.

8EPA concludes that this error is mi nor and inco nsequential to the Admi nistrator’s Endangerment Finding. EPA does not refer to or rely on th is statistic in the Endangerment Finding or supporting documents, and this information does not pertain to endangerment of public health and welfare in the United States in any meani ngful way. It does not call into question the integrity of the IPCC, and it has no impact on the scientific support for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Furthermore, as the error pertains to a statistic outside the Un ited States, it is not relevant to the Endangerment Finding. As not ed in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Admini strator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anti cipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains th e Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

2.1.3 Validity of Himalayan Glacier Projection

Comment (2-2) : Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Pea body Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas) state that the IPCC erre d in including a projecti on that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035, and they claim EPA relied on this projection in the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners argue that this error undermines the credibility of the IPCC reports. The Ohio Coal Association writes: “T he Agency no longer has a basis for unquestioned confidence that the IPCC reports present a fair , unbiased, and accurate assessment of climate science.” Peabody states the error: “...undercuts EPA’s conclusion that the IPCC review process was ‘rigorous’ and shows how reliance on the IPCC led to errors in EPA’s Endangerment Finding.”

Response (2-2) : The IPCC has issued a correction pertaining to this projection for the melting of Himalayan glaciers (IPCC, 2010f):

The Synthesis Report, the concluding documen t of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urba nization. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and re ductions in snow cove r over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonal ity of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more

than one-sixth of the worl d population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and enti rely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment. It has, how ever, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well9established standards of evidence, require d by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of th e IPCC regret the poor application of wellestablished IPCC procedures in this instance. This episod e demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute a dherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We r eaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

First, as described in Response 2-3 below, this error concerns a single study, out of many that support the IPCC’s conclusions regarding glacier recession. Second, EPA does not refer to this projection in the Endangerment Finding or supporting material. We acknowledge that the TSD mentions Himalayan glaciers; Table 16.1 of S ection 16(b) (“Overview of International Impacts”), highlighting “examples” of intern ational impacts, states (U.S. EPA, 2009):

Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding and rock avalanches from destabilized slopes and to affect water resources within the next two to three decades. This will be followed by decreased ri ver flows as the glaciers recede.

This statement is entirely consistent with the IPCC’s statement in its Synthesis Report (on page 49) (IPCC, 2007b), cited above, which the IPCC not es is “robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the br oader IPCC assessment.” EPA did not refer to a

rate of recession or a timef rame in which the Himalayan glaciers would be gone.

This error represents one lapse in the deliberate preparation and review of a multi-volume assessment containing thousands of pages of fi ndings and conclusions. Despite petitioners’ claims to the contrary, the timing of glacier recession in the Himalayas has no impact on the scientific support for EPA’s Endangermen t Finding. As noted in Section 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D):

The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Admini strator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.

After careful review, the facts do not substantiate the petitioner s’ assertion that this error

undercuts EPA’s conclusion that the IPCC review process was ‘rigorous’ or that reliance on the IPCC, among other assessments, led to errors in EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Comment (2-3) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation questions th e IPCC claim that the conclusions regarding Himalayan glaciers presented in the AR4 Synthesi s Report are “robust, appr opriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment” despite the erroneous projection. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states: “The IP CC has now grudgingly retracted

10the claim of imm inent Himalayan glacier melt, though it claims the overall conclusions regarding glacial melt are robust. How th eir conclusions can be fake but accurate is not evident.”

Response (2-3) : Southeastern Legal Foundation is referring to the following conclusions in the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007b, page 49):

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanization. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers a nd small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potenti al, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.

EPA has reviewed the complete discussion of this issue in the AR4, in the Synthesis Report, and in the contributions of Working Groups I (IPCC, 2007e) and II (IPCC, 2007g). The IPCC cites numerous studies that document Himalaya and other Asian glacier tr ends, projections, and impacts. For example, it references the followi ng findings from a range of studies supporting its

conclusion:

 Glaciers in the Asian high mount ains have generally shrunk at varying rates (from Su and Shi, 2002; Ren et al., 2004; Solomina et al., 2004; Dyurgerov a nd Meier, 2005)—in IPCC Working Group I Chapter 4 (Lemke et al., 2007).

 The entire Hindu-Kush-Himalaya ice mass has d ecreased in the last two decades. Water supply in areas fed by glacial meltwater from the Hindu Kush and Himalayas, on which hundreds of millions of people in China and India depend, will be negatively affected (Barnett et al., 2005)—in IP CC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

 The Himalayan glacier Gangotri receded at an average rate of 7.3 meters every year from 1842 to 1935; from 1985 to 2001, it receded at a rate of 23 meters per year (Hasnain, 2002)—in IPCC Working Group II Ch apter 10 (Cruz et al., 2007).

 Reductions in the mass of a sample of Northe rn Hemisphere glaciers (including several in Asia) of up to 60% are projected by 2050 (S chneeburger et al., 2003)—in IPCC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

 Rapid melting of glaciers can lead to flooding ofrivers and the formation of glacial meltwater lakes, which may pose a serious risk of outburst floods (Coudrain et al., 2005)—in IPCC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

Thus, EPA finds that the single faulty projecti on highlighted by petitione rs does not compromise

the IPCC’s overall assessment of observed glacier loss, projected gl acier loss, and the impacts of glacier loss on water resources in the Himalayas. Numerous studies docu ment a general decline in Himalayan glacier mass, project substantial fu ture declines, and discus s the impacts of these

11changes on water resources and society, which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. The petitioner’s claim implies that the IPCC conclusion in the Synthesis Report depends upon a single study, without which we are uncertain as to the fate and timing of Himalayan glacier melt. The full discussion of this i ssue by the IPCC clearly demonstrates that the petitioners’ argument is flawed and that th e IPCC’s conclusions are well-supported by the

scientific literature.

2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses

Comment (2-4) : Some petitioners raise concerns with certain aspe cts of the IPCC’s treatment of climate change and natural disasters. The Southeastern Legal Foundation asserts that th e IPCC mischaracterized the findings of a non-peer-reviewed study (Mui r-Wood et al., 2006) on climate change and disaster losses. It states that the IPCC repor ted that global warming wa s causing an increase in losses from weather disasters of 2% per year, ev en after controlling for economic growth, citing the Muir-Wood study even though that study ha d actually found no trend. Along with the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Competitive Enterp rise Institute refers to an article in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010b) indicating th at the IPCC wrongly linked climate change to natural

disasters. Southeastern Legal Foundation finds:

The EPA Endangerment Finding relies heavily on the assertion that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] will cause extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe and thus constitute a danger to human health and welfare—an essential element of the Finding. To support this assertion the Finding in turn relies heavily on the IPCC’s reports on weather disasters.

Response (2-4) : To support the Endangerment Finding, EPA cited th e potential impacts of climate change on the number and/or severity of certain extreme w eather events, for which the Southeastern Legal Foundation levels no specific criticism. The TSD did not discuss th e link between climate change and the historical trends in the economic magnitude of disaster losses. In responding to public comments on the issue (e.g., see Responses 7-5 and 7-38 in the Response to Comments [RTC] document), EPA acknowledged that many f actors influence the economic losses caused by disasters which make it difficult to use historical data on tre nds in economic disaster loss to determine the impact of climate change on the loss es from weather events in the past. Further, the Endangerment Finding is clear that the Admi nistrator’s decision was based on the physical and environmental impacts associated with cl imate change, and how they can affect the characteristics of weather events, not the link betw een climate change and disaster losses. As the Endangerment Finding states (Section I.A):

The evidence concerning how human induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, give n the serious adverse impacts

that can result from such events and the increas e in risk, even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods.

12With respect to the Muir-Wood study, we neither cited nor relied upon it in our discussion of

extrem e events. In fact, our only specific re ference to this study in the record for the Endangerment Finding is in Response 1-15 in the RTC documents, which a ddressed criticism of the IPCC’s use of gray l iterature. The technical aspects of this study were not discussed because EPA did not focus on the relationship between cl imate change and the economic magnitude of disaster losses as underlying support for the E ndangerment Finding. We note that the TSD did include a figure (TSD Figure 14.1) showing inform ation on several factors, including one portion (panel e) on observed U.S. hu rricane economic damages compared to a measure of Atlantic hurricane intensity. This figure was taken from the chapter on North America from Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4 (Field et al., 2007, Figure 14.1); the TSD provides no commentary on the hurricane economic damages portion (panel e).

The controversy surrounding the relationship between climate change and economic losses from disasters did arise in public comments (e.g., s ee comments 7-5 and 7-38 in the RTC document), to which EPA provided measured, balanced responses consistent with the assessment literature. In comment 7-38, for example, the commenter argued that increasing raw damage totals associated with tropical storm (or hurricane) damage in coastal communities are not the result of climate change, but rather are caused by change s in coastal populati on, the wealth of the population, inflation, and poor sediment ma nagement practices. EPA responded:

EPA agrees that the interaction of a series of drivers adversely im pacts coastal areas and can contribute to tropical stor m damage totals. These driver s include changes in coastal population, wealth of the populat ion, inflation, and sediment management practices.

EPA’s response then focused on the physical imp acts of climate change that suggest increased risk to the public from severe weather even ts, pointing to the following findings from the

assessment literature:

 Superimposed on accelerated sea level rise, the present storm and wave climatology and storm surge frequency dist ributions suggest more severe coastal flooding and erosion hazards (Nicholls et al., 2007).

 Higher sea level provides an elevated ba se for storm surges to build upon and diminishes the rate at which low-lying ar eas drain, thereby increasing the risk of flooding from rainstorms (CCSP, 2009a).

 Apart from nonclimatic events such as ts unamis, extreme sea levels occur mainly in the form of storm surges generated by tropical or extra-tropical cyclones.

There is evidence for an increase in extreme high sea level since 1975 based upon an analysis of 99 th percentiles of hourly sea leve l at 141 stations over the globe (Bindoff et al., 2007).

We also noted: “USGCRP concludes that future increases in losses will be attributable to climate change with high confidence as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of many types of extreme weather (Karl et al., 2009).” EPA agrees with this conclusion regarding losses in the future—if climate change causes an in crease in the frequency or intensity of certain severe weather events, then it follows that c limate change could lead to increased losses compared with what would occur without the incr ease in those severe weather events. However,

13EPA did not focus on historical trends in the ma gnitude of econom ic disast er losses to evaluate the likelihood that climate change would lead to an increase in the number or frequency of such

weather events. For that reas on, the charge that the IPCC mi scharacterized reports on the implications of such historical trends doe s not materially affect the basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

For its part, the IPCC responded to the allegati on that it mischaracteri zed the Muir-Wood study on climate change and disaster losses with an official statement (IPCC, 2010e). The IPCC stated, among other things, that the Sunday Times article cited by South eastern Legal Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Incorrectly assumes that a brief section on tr ends in economic losses from climate-related disasters is everything the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has to say about changes in extremes and disasters. In f act, the Fourth Assessment Report reaches many important conclusions, at many lo cations in the report, about th e role of climate change in

extreme events. The assessment addresses both observations of past changes and projections of future changes in sectors ra nging from heat waves and precipitation to

wildfires. Each of these is a careful a ssessment of the available evidence, with a thorough consideration of the confidence w ith which each conclusion can be drawn.

To summarize, petitioners do not properly char acterize the information on which EPA relied in making the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners also mischaracterize the stat ements of the IPCC. The IPCC reasonably characterized the links betw een climate change and the projected increase in frequency and severity of severe weather ev ents. The IPCC discussed the various types of evidence supporting this view, whic h include but are clearly not lim ited to consideration of the evidence for and against the ability to identify a climate change impact from the trend in economic magnitude of disaster lo sses, and the IPCC caveated its di scussion of this issue. To support the Endangerment Finding, EP A cited the physical and envi ronmental factors indicating that climate change would lead to an increase in frequency and se verity of certain severe weather events. Only in response to public comments did EPA discuss what can be determined from analyses of past trends in di saster losses. Accordingly, EPA did not rely on a linkage between climate change and the economic magnitude of disaster losses to support the Endangerment Finding, and petitioners’ arguments do not undermine the reasoning supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Our response to a petitioner’s specific claims regarding the Muir-Wood study is provided in Response 2-5, below.

Comment (2-5) : Southeastern Legal Foundation writes:

The IPCC reported that global warming was causi ng an increase in losses from weather disasters of 2% per year, ev en after controlling for econom ic growth, citing a non-peer reviewed study by Robert Muir-Wood. Yet the IPCC mischaracterized the study, which actually found no trend and expressly eschewed the proposition for wh ich it was cited.

14Muir-Wood et al. expressly caveated that the exceptio nally strong hurricane seasons in

2004 and 2005 accounted for alm ost all of the 2% increase from 1970-2005.

Response (2-5) : First, while the version of the Muir-Wood et al. (2006) paper cited in the IPCC was not yet peerreviewed, a subsequent version of this work wa s peer-reviewed and accepted for publication just weeks after the cutoff for inclusion in the IPCC, according to a statement by Risk Management Solutions (RMS), where Robert Muir-Wood is em ployed as a chief rese arch officer. In a frequently asked questions document poste d on its website (RMS, 2010), RMS states:

The research was conducted during the first half of 2006 and the full paper summarizing the results was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in November 2006. This was

a few weeks outside of the cut-off date for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report in October, which is why an earlier summary version of the paper—written for a scientific workshop held in May 2006 and published in the conf erence proceedings in October 2006—was referenced (the IPCC can only cite publishe d material). Despite not being able to reference it, the IPCC was aware of the full report and that it had been accepted for publication before the 4th Asse ssment Report was finalized.

While the paper was completed and accepte d for publication in November 2006, delays in publication meant that it did not officially appear as a book chapter until 2008.

Second, the same frequently asked questions do cument (RMS, 2010) indicates that the IPCC did

not mischaracterize the results of the paper:

RMS believes the IPCC fairly referenced its paper, with suit able caveats around the results, highlighting the factors influenci ng the relationship that had been discovered between time and increased catastrophe costs. We believe it was a ppropriate to include the RMS paper in the report because, at that time, it was the only paper addressing global multi-peril catastrophe losses over time that had been normalized for changes in the values and exposure at risk.

Thus, we find the study to be va lid. As discussed in Response 1-15 of the RTC document, the use of non-peer-reviewed literature is allowed un der IPCC procedures. In this case, the paper was clearly a reasonable refere nce and was ultimately peer-r eviewed. We further find the petitioner’s discussion of the cav eats in the Muir-Wood paper to be potentially misleading. The petitioner claims that “the IPCC mischaracterized the study” and states in the next sentence that

“Muir-Wood et al. expressly caveated that the excepti onally strong hurricane seasons in 2004

and 2005 accounted for almost all of the 2% in crease from 1970-2005.” This could give the impression that the IPCC does not provide such cav eats. An examination of the discussion in Working Group II’s contribution to the IPCC AR4, however, reveals th at it also caveats the 2% increase, stating (Rosenzweig et al., 2007): “The significance of th e upward trend is influenced by the losses in the USA and the Caribbean in 2004 and 2005 and is arguably biased by the relative wealth of the USA, particularly relative to India.”

15Comment (2-6) : Background: Southeastern Legal Foundation cites the following IPCC expert reviewer comment (IPCC, 2006c), which was submitted while the Working Group II report was in preparation and pertains to the IPCC’s characte rization of climate change and disaster losses and the Muir-Wood et al. (2006) study:

I think this is inappropriate. It leads the reader into interpreting recent events in a particular way without providing supporting information. This suggestion, that the losses

in 2004 and 2005 draw Pielke’s results into question, needs to be supported with a reference or a solid in-chapter assessment. What does Pielke think about this? (Francis Zwiers, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis)

According to Roger Pielke Jr. (Pielke, 2010a), a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, the expert reviewer, Zwie rs, is referring to th is passage in the AR4 (Rosenzweig et al., 2007):

A previous normalisation of losses, undertaken for U.S. hurricanes by Pielke and Landsea (1998) and U.S. floods (Pielke et al., 2002) included normalising the economic losses for changes in wealth and populati on so as to express losses in constant dollars. These previous national U.S. assessments, as we ll as those for normalised Cuban hurricane losses (Pielke et al., 2003), di d not show any significant upward trend in losses over time,

but this was before the remarkab le hurricane losses of 2004 and 2005.

The IPCC writing team responded to the Zwiers co mment with the following: “I believe Pielke agrees that adding 2004 and 2005 has the potential to change his earlier c onclusions – at least

about the absence of a trend in US Cat losses” (IPCC, 2006c).

Comment: The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that “The IPCC knew from the comments of reviewers that their use of the [Mui r-Wood] study was wrong before the report was published.” Citing a blog post from Roger Piel ke Jr., Southeastern Legal Foundation suggests the IPCC fabricated its response to the expert reviewer, Zwiers:

The IPCC reviewer had asked “What does Piel ke think about this?” The answer given was a fabrication, according to Pielke, Jr. As he commented on hi s blog, “[N]ot only did the IPCC AR4 WGII egregiously misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but when questions were raised about that section by at least one expert reviewer, it simply made up a misleading and false response about my views.”

Response (2-6) : It is unfortunate that Dr. Pielke found that his views were mi srepresented by the IPCC. EPA cannot speculate how or why this happened. Dr . Pielke had the opportunity to comment on the

IPCC’s draft treatment of these issues as a reviewer , but did not. (He is officially listed as an IPCC Working Group II expert reviewer for the United States in Appendix III of the IPCC AR4 Working Group II report (IPCC, 2007f).

16The representative for the IPCC’s author team wr ote “I believe Pielke agrees,” which suggests a possible honest m isunderstanding of Dr. Pielke’s views. This in cident certainly does not support the petitioner’s contention that the IPCC “knew” that its use of the Muir-Wood study was wrong. In fact, as discussed in the previous response (2 -5), it is not at all cl ear that the study was wrong or was used inappropriately by the IPCC in any way.

At the time the Muir-Wood et al. study was co mpleted in 2006, it was the only global analysis

we are aware of that included 2004 and 2005 data. Wh ile it is true that Pielke Jr.’s remarks from the Seventh Annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture contained an an alysis of normalized Atlantic hurricane damages th rough 2005 and were published in Oceanography (Pielke, 2006), those remarks were not assessed by the IPCC, like ly because they were presented as a lecture rather than a scientific study. Much of the scientific content of Dr. Pielke’s talk was subsequently peer-reviewed and published in 20 08 (Pielke et al., 2008), but this was well after

the IPCC deadline for inclusion in the AR4. Furthermore, whereas Dr. Pielke’s 2006 analysis in Oceanography limited its focus to Atlantic hurricanes, the Muir-Wood analysis was multi-hazard and global.

Thus, while the IPCC may have made mistaken assumptions about Dr. Pielke’s views, its reliance on the Muir-Wood et al. (2 006) study was reasonable, as th at study contained the latest and most relevant published global analysis.

Comment (2-7) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that EPA’s Response 1-15 (in Volume 1 of the RTC document, concerning the use of non-peer-reviewed literature) did not re spond to the substance of the comment concerning the IPCC’s and Climate Change Science Program’s (CCSP’s) misrepresentation of the litera ture and the central underlying point that there was no legitimate evidence that manmade climate change was cau sing an increase in weather disasters.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation notes: “Thi s comment showed that both the IPCC and especially the CCSP had fraudul ently asserted that AGW was causing increased frequency and severity of extreme weather ev ents.” It provides the following excerpt from the comment (3303):

In 2007 the IPCC released its Fourth Asse ssment Report and it relied on the single nonpeer reviewed Muir-Wood (2006) [9] st udy cherrypicked from the Hohenkammer workshop as the single study to highlight in its review of this topic. [12] The same critique of the Stern report ’s reliance on this Muir-W ood study above applies to the IPCC’s reliance on it as well. Further, th e IPCC included a graph [13] attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster losses, using a scaling of the axes to suggest a relationship where none has been shown in the peer-reviewed literature. Again it relies on Muir-Wood (2005). Coincidentally, Robert Muir-Wood, of Risk Management Solutions, Inc., was an aut hor of the chapter of the IPCC report that selectively highlighted his own non-peer reviewed work.

The US Climate Change Science Program systematically and repeatedly misrepresented

the science of disasters and climate change. First, the CCSP US extremes report [14] miscited several of Roger Peilke’s papers in support of claims that they did not make and

17relied on Mills 2005 as the definitive source on th is topic. [16] The disasters and climate change section of this CCSP report is also a fact checker’s nightm are. Second the CCSP draft Synthesis report and fi nal Synthesis report [15] relie d on non-peer reviewed work by Evan Mills and ignored releva nt peer reviewed research showing different results (in fact all peer reviewed res earch points in the same direction on this subject). Coincidentally, Evan Mills was an author of the CCSP Synthesis Report that highlights his own non-peer reviewed work. Mills also apparently consults for companies with an interest in climate policies, and yet this was not disclosed by the CCSP.

It then cites EPA’s response (RTC 1-15):

The commenter describes two pieces of literature that were referenced by IPCC but not published in peer reviewed journals: 1) a natural catastrophes report by Munich Re (2000) that was cited in IPCC Third Asse ssment Report (IPCC, 2001), and 2) a paper on

trends in weather-related cat astrophes by Muir-Wood et al. ( 2006). The identification of only two examples out of the thousands of references cited in the IPCC (2000) and (2007) reports provides more support for the ri gor of the IPCC proce ss. Further, these specific studies were neither the central nor sole evidence used in forming the broader conclusions of the IPCC; such broader c onclusions are based on multiple lines of evidence and peer-reviewed literature.

On the basis of EPA’s response, the S outheastern Legal Foundation concludes:

It is a very peculiar logic that treats proof of what appears to be scientific fraud as demonstrating “the rigor of the IPCC’s proce ss.” No response whatsoever is made to the substance of the comment concerning the CCSP’ s misrepresentation of the literature and the central underlying point that there was no legitimate evidence that manmade climate change was causing an increase in weather disast ers. The question naturally arises as to why the EPA avoided these points. One of the lead authors of the CCSP report so vigorously attacked in Comment 3303 is T homas Wilbanks, of the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The same Thomas Wilban ks was a Federal expert reviewer for the TSD. TSD p. 2. Thus, the EPA ignored and avoided the substance of a comment that pointed out that a report of which one of its expert reviewers was a lead author had “systematically and repeatedly misrepresent ed the science of disasters and climate change.”

Response (2-7) : First, EPA’s RTC document, Volume 1, covers EPA’s “General Approach to the Science and Other Technical Issues,” not the substantive issu es pertaining to climat e change and disaster

losses. Those issues are discussed in RTC Vo lume 7, “Water Resources, Coastal Areas, and Ecosystems and Wildlife.” Specifically, RTC 7- 38 address substantive issues pertaining to climate change and disaster losses raised by co mmenters (as does RTC 7-5) as discussed in Response 2-4 above. Accordingly, EPA’s commen tary on the Muir-Wood literature in Volume 1 focuses on process issues, and the scient ific issues are addr essed in Volume 7.

18Furthermore, as we indicate in Response 2-5 a bove, a subsequent versi on of Muir-W ood et al. (2006) was, in fact, peer-reviewed and accepted for publication just weeks after the IPCC cutoff according to RMS. Irrespective of the peer review issue, we reiterate our conclusion from RTC 1-15: “...these specific studies were neither the ce ntral nor sole evidence used in forming the broader conclusions of the IPCC; such broade r conclusions are based on multiple lines of evidence and peer-reviewed literature.” The magnitude of observed disaster losses from extreme events in general, and the Muir-Wood study in particular, were not central to EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

We discuss allegations that the IPCC misrepresent ed the literature on observed climate change and disaster losses in Response 2-5. With re spect to the “graph [13, IPCC Supplementary Material Figure SM1.1, Working Group II AR 4, 2007] attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster lo sses” referred to in the cited comment (3303) above, we note that said graph was not cite d or relied upon in the Endangerment Finding and, furthermore, that it did not appear in the main IPCC Working Group II report but in supplementary material. We acknowledge this graph is controversial. RMS, for example, stated the following in its frequently asked questions document pertaining to climate change and disaster losses (RMS, 2010):

A graph showing averaged global temperatur e and averaged catas trophe loss since 1970 was included in supplementary material rath er than the IPCC report itself and was not itself published. RMS believes that the gra ph could be misinterpreted and should not

have been included in these materials.

Despite this statement, the inclusion of one c ontroversial graph in suppl ementary material does not compromise the IPCC’s credibility or legitimacy.

The charges that CCSP (and hence USGCRP) miscit ed and misrepresented Roger Pielke Jr.’s work, over-relied on the work of Evan Mills, and ignored some other studies on the issue of climate change and disaster loss are difficult to as sess as they were made in blog posts (of Roger Pielke Jr. (Pielke, 2010b)), repres ent the perspective of one indi vidual (Roger Pielke Jr.), and have not been published in any official capacity (e.g., in the peer-reviewed literature). However, they do not materially affect the basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Dr. Pielke himself

stated: “...I am of the view that the Obama Administration is perf ectly justified in advancing the [Endangerment] finding” (Pielke, 2010b). As we state in Response 2-4, EPA did not focus on historical trends in the magnitude of economic di saster losses to evalua te the likelihood that climate change would lead to an increase in the number or frequency of extreme weather events. Furthermore, in RTC 7-5 we cite the CCSP ( 2008) statement acknowledging that the relative contribution of climate change and socioeconomic vulnerability (to weather and climate extremes) to observed increases in disaster costs are “subject to debate.”

Finally, the fact that Robert Mu ir-Wood and Evan Mills were select ed as authors for chapters in the IPCC and CCSP, respectively, and may have cited their own work does not delegitimize these assessments or their findings. Rather, it is only appropriate that leading experts on these topics—familiar with the range of literature—would be asked to assist in these assessments. Petitioners provide no evidence to support th e allegation that Evan Mills’ work was

19comprom ised or biased; speculating that he “appa rently” does consulting for companies “with an interest in climate policies” is innuendo, not proof.

Lastly, the fact that Thomas Wilbanks was an expert reviewer for EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) and was lead author of a report that the peti tioner alleges “systematically and repeatedly misrepresented the science of disasters and clim ate change” is irrelevant. As we state in Response 2-4, EPA did not discuss observed climate change and di saster losses in the TSD. Thus, though we discuss some of CCSP’s conclu sions in RTC 7-5 and 7-38 that focus on the challenges in linking observed clim ate change and disaster losses, CCSP’s treatment of this issue was not and is not materially relevant to the Endangerment Finding. Furthermore, the petitioner does not present evidence Wilbanks played any role in the presentation of material on this issue. Thus, the charge that EPA “ignor ed and avoided” the substance of the comment on disasters and climate change because of Wilbanks is unsupported and false. EPA relied on a team of federal experts to ensure that EPA was correctly synthe sizing the existing assessment literature in the

TSD. As RTC 1-10 states:

....the purpose of the federal expert review was to ensure that the TSD accurately

summarized the conclusions and associated uncertainties from the assessment reports. The federal experts were ideal candidates becau se they have contributed significantly to the body of climate change literature and played ac tive roles in IPCC and CCSP— therefore making them experts on various aspects of climate science and very familiar with the underlying literature and state of th e science. Furthermore, the federal climate change experts represent a range of technical specialties that span the range of topics covered in the TSD and covered by the range of topics that the Admi nistrator needed to consider. In addition, the fede ral experts were not involved with developing the TSD or Findings in any way other th an their review roles.

Petitioners are making a very serious accusation—th at “what appears to be scientific fraud” occurred—without providing supporting scientific evidence. Instead, they mischaracterize EPA’s actions in claiming that disaster losses ar e central to the Endangerment Finding when they clearly are not. They mischaracterize EPA’s treatment of comments on the proposed Endangerment Finding by implying that we did not address the issues surrounding disaster losses, when the issue is clearly addressed in the appropriate volume of the RTC. And they impugn the integrity of several sc ientists, on the basis of specula tion not evidence, seemingly for no other reason than that they disagree with the conclusions of the assessment literature.

2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, an d African Mountain Snow Impacts

Comment (2-8) : Several petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation) argue that claims of glacier melt in the Andes, the Alps, and parts of Africa arise from an ecdotal comments in a magazine article and a master thesis. They challenge the IPCC’s use of this non-peer-reviewed literature, suggesting the findings may be suspect. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation states: “The EPA

should reconsider its reliance on the IPCC’s reporting now that th e IPCC’s conclusion has been shown to be so poorly supported.”

20Response (2-8) : The citations referred to by peti tioners regarding the reduction of mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa are actually references to “lo ss of ice climbs,” not assessments of mountainglacier retreat. Loss of ice climbs is an example of the observed effects of warming on the icecovered areas of the Earth. In th is context, these citations are appropriate and within the IPCC’s guidelines on the use of so-called gray literatu re. They provide additional evidence consistent with the well-supported peer-review conclusions th at snowpack is declining in many places and that glaciers are melting worldwide. Note th at we respond to petiti oners’ broader claims regarding the IPCC’s use of gray literature in Subsection 2.2.4.4.

Furthermore, as the finding in question pertains to indicators outside the United States, the petitioners’ claims are not rele vant to the Endangerment Findi ng. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (S ection III.D): “The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that th ese impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her de termination of endangerment.”

EPA did not rely on these specific re ferences or refer to “loss of ice climbs” as an indicator of climate change. Our primary focus was on the implications of climate change for the United States, and we relied on peer-revie wed literature to assess these impacts. We did not refer to this specific issue in either the TSD or the Endangerment Finding, and we did not include any

discussion on “loss of ice climbs.” The TSD does include discussion of m ountain glacier retreat, based on peer-reviewed literature, which the petitioners do not critique.

2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rain forest Dieback Projection

Comment (2-9) : Several petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal Foundation) challenge the IPCC’s statement that “[U]p to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation,” alleging that it arises from gr ay literature and cannot be substantiated. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that the source for the IPCC’s statement, Nepstad et al. (1999) from the journal Nature, “does not support the IPCC’s a ssertion”. Peabody states that

“the Nature article does not contain the 40% figure” and “the provenance of the IPCC’s striking ‘40%’ figure is uncertain.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute finds that “the IPCC claim that the findings in AR4 are based on peer reviewed science is false.”

Response (2-9) : First, we note that this issue is not discusse d anywhere in the TSD or Endangerment Finding, and

is thus of little rele vance to the Finding. Second, while we agree that the IPCC cited gray literature in this case—i.e., Rowell and M oore (2000), a report of the World Wildlife Federation—we note that the underlying studies supporting the Rowell and Moore report are, in fact, peer-reviewed.

21In response to the publicity surrounding this pur portedly unsubstantiated finding in the IPCC AR4, Daniel Nepstad—a senior scie ntist at Woods Hole Research Center and author of the study (Nepstad et al., 1999) that c ontained the finding referred to by Rowell and Moore—issued a

statem ent on this matter. In the statement, he noted that the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete but that the AR 4’s statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to

rainfall reduction was correct. Here is the re levant excerpt from his statement (Nepstad, 2010):

The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomple te. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this not e, and had originally cited the IPAM website

where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Ou r 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total ar ea of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Na ture, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their av ailable soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was rele ased in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the cr itical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reducti on of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US Na tional Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critic al threshold is presented in Nepstad et al.

2007.

Specifically, we note that the Nepstad et al. (2004) study states: “Increases in ET [evapotranspiration] of only 15% or similar reductions in rainfall can lead to severe soil moisture deficits over roughly half of the Amazon.” This statement certainly is consistent with the statement “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests c ould react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” in the IPCC AR4.

Nepstad’s 2010 statement in response to this controversy reached the following conclusion (Nepstad, 2010):

In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.

Similarly, in its report Assessing an IPCC Assessment , PBL (2010a) identified a problem with the IPCC’s referencing of this finding, but not the finding itself. It states:

More adequate peer-reviewed, sc ientific journal literature w ould have been available to support this statement, such as Cox et al. (2000; 2004) (C6). This minor comment has no consequences for the IPCC conclusions in the various Summaries for Policymakers.

22Finally, the United Kingdom’ s Sunday Times newspaper, which reported the alleged problem with the IPCC’s representati on of this issue on January 31, 2010 (Sunday Times, 2010), has subsequently reversed itself, arriving at th e same conclusion as Nepstad. Consequently, it removed the article from its website and pr inted a correction on J une 20, 2010 (Sunday Times, 2010), which stated in part:

The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Clim ate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of th e Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had refere nced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowe ll and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little sc ientific expertise.” The article also stated

that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is support ed by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure ha d, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate ch ange. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journa list and that Dr Moor e is an expert in forest management, and apologise fo r any suggestion to the contrary.

To summarize, contrary to the assertions of the petitioners, though the IPCC may have not adequately referenced the Amazon finding, the basi s for its statement originated from and is supported by peer-reviewed literature. Furthermor e, as this finding is specific to the Amazon region, petitioners’ claims are not relevant to the Endangerment Finding. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section I II.D): “The Administra tor looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determin ed that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

For further discussion on petitione rs’ broader claims regarding the IPCC’s use of gray literature, please refer to Subsection 2.2.4.4.

2.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection

The comments and responses in th is section refer to the following statement pertaining to crop yields in Africa from Chapter 9 of Working Group II’s contribution to the IPCC AR4 (Boko et al., 2007):

In other countries [of Africa] additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficien cies in yields from rain-f ed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in the crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).

A version of this statement appeared in the IPCC’s AR4 Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007b):

23By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-f ed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including acce ss to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security

and exacerbate malnutrition.

A similar statement also appeared in the IPCC’s AR4 Worki ng Group II Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2007c):

Agricultural production, includi ng access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the le ngth of growing seasons and yi eld potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas , are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agri culture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

The same statement (from IPCC, 2007c) was in corporated into EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) within Table 16.1: “Examples of Key Re gional Impacts as Identified by IPCC.”

Comment (2-10) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation take issue with a statement in Section 16(b) of the TSD that: “In some countries, yields from rain -fed agriculture coul d be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.” They claim the statement originated from gray literature in the IPCC AR4 and is therefore illegitimate. Southeastern Legal Foundation concludes: “The African Crop Yields claim stands as another example of the IPCC making a claim of imminent disaster that inappr opriately relied on nonpeer-reviewed literature...”

Response (2-10) : The IPCC statement cites a report by Dr. Ali A goumi, a climate expert from Morocco (Agoumi, 2003) that was published by the International Inst itute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and funded by the government of Canada, the U.S. Agen cy for International De velopment, and other public and private institutions. Based on EPA’s re view of the report, it appears that the 50% number was not obtained from the peer-reviewed lit erature but rather from “vulnerability studies on three North African countries (Algeria, Moro cco and Tunisia) with respect to climatic changes.” These vulnerability studies were prepared under th e U.N. Environment Programme

Global Environment Fund and included in the Na tional Communications of these three countries

to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Ch ange (Ministry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001, Kingdom of Morocco, 2001 and Republic of Tunisia, 2001).

In response to publicity regarding this purportedl y unsubstantiated statement in the IPCC report, Dr. Coleen Vogel, a contributing lead author of the IPCC chapter on Africa impacts, described the context in which Dr. Agoumi’s research wa s used. She explained that Agoumi’s report received rigorous scrutiny by her fellow authors and was thoroughly discussed during development of the chapter (Kretzmann, 2010). She explained that the deci sion to include this (gray literature) study was based on the paucity of peer-reviewed material relating to some parts

24of the world, particularly Africa, and the desire of the authors of the report to provide balanced

inform ation. The process described by Dr. Vogel is consistent with th e IPCC’s guidance on the use of gray literature, as prev iously described in Volume 1 of the RTC document and further discussed in Subsection 2.2.4.4 of this Response to Petitions (RTP) document.

Finally, we note that this statement relates to impacts outside the United States, and it did not materially impact the determination of endangerm ent of public health and welfare in the United States. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at imp acts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

Comment (2-11) : Referring to an analysis published by Ben Pile, co-editor of the blog climateresistance.org (on the blog of Roger Pielke, Jr.) (Pile, 2010), the Southeastern Lega l Foundation states that the primary reference supporting the IPCC’s statemen t on African crop yields “Vulnerability of North African Countries to Climatic Changes” (Agoumi, 2003) was from IISD, an advocacy

group.

Regarding the IISD reference, Peabody Energy states:

Thus, the EPA based its findings on the IPCC WGII report, which based its findings on a report [the IISD report] published by an organizat ion with a declared pol itical interest in climate change that based its findings from an assessment of other non-peer reviewed

national studies. This is not the wa y EPA science should be carried out.

Response (2-11) : The implication that the credibility of IPCC’s statement on African crop yields is diminished because the IPCC’s source (Agoumi, 2003) for the statement was published by an advocacy organization or an organization with a “declared political inte rest in climate change” is unsupported. The organization in question is IISD, which describes itself as follows:

The International Institute for Sustainabl e Development contribut es to sustainable development by advancing policy recomme ndations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change, measurement and indicators, and natural resource management. By using Internet communications, we repor t on international negotiations and broker knowledge gained th rough collaborative pr ojects with global partners, resulting in more rigorous resear ch, capacity build ing in developing countries and better dialogue between North and South.

IISD’s vision is better livi ng for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IIS D receives operating grant support from the Government of Canada, provided through th e Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Environment Canada, and from the Province of Manitoba. The institute receives project funding from th e Government of Canada, the Province of

25Manitoba, other national governme nts, Unite d Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. IISD is regi stered as a charitable orga nization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.

We find no reason to question the credibility and legitimacy of information produced by this organization on the basis of e ither its mission or funding sour ces. Moreover, neither the Southeastern Legal Foundation nor Peabody Energy provide any support for the implication that work by an organization such as IISD is automatically suspect or flawed.

Finally, Peabody Energy’s statement that EPA’s findings are based on this material is incorrect. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangermen t Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at imp acts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

We discuss the legitimacy of the science and under lying references for the African crop yields statement in Response 2-12.

Comment (2-12) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation alleges that EPA uncritically adopted the IPCC’s “faulty conclusion” with respect to crop yields. It refers to a blog by writer/commentator Richard North (North, 2010) to conclude the Agoumi (2003) reference cited by the IPCC on the issue of rainfed agricultural yields in Africa relies on studies that “ do not support the proposition for which they are cited.”

Relying on Richard North’s blog, the Sout heastern Legal Founda tion summarizes the vulnerability studies cited by Agoumi (2003) from the Nationa l Communications of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation notes that the Morocco National

Communication “lends some s upport [to the Agoumi reference], saying that by 2020 during drought conditions cereal yields would decline up to 50%” but that “the data apply to cereal yields only, not crops in genera l as is implied by the IPCC.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation further states that “Algeria’s report said their yields would doubl e, and be trimmed only slightly by ‘climate change’” and “Tunisi a’s submission concluded the pict ure was mixed, but they could

have an increase in rain a nd agricultural production.”

Response (2-12) : The IPCC’s statement on rain-fed agriculture in Northern Africa is not “faulty” and the Southeastern Legal Foundation pr esents no evidence that it was included uncritically in EPA’s TSD. Furthermore, the Southeastern Legal Fo undation’s portrayal of findings on climate and crop yields from the National Communications of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria derived from Richard North’s blog is not complete. When all of the information in these National Communications is considered, we find there is broad support fo r Agoumi’s (2003) statements on North African rain-fed agriculture, which are:

26 “Some of the key statistics regarding wate r, soil, urban areas and coastal zones are outlined below. . . . Decreasing rain-based ag ricultural yields with grain yields reduced by up to 50 percent in periods of drought.”

 “Studies on the future of vital agriculture in the region have shown the following risks, which are linked to climate change: . . . defici ent yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50 percent during the 2000–2020 period.”

PBL, in its report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), makes the following important point with respect to IPCC’s statemen t on rain-fed agriculture in Africa:

This statement is not directly a statement on climate change, but on climate variability: in individual years, droughts can cause up to 50% in yield redu ctions. The implicit message here is that when droughts w ould become more frequent du e to climate change, more years with up to 50% in yield reductions would occur. The statement could easily mislead readers into thinking that average a nnual yields could be reduced by up to 50% due to climate change. In the Summar y for Policymakers of the Working Group II Report, the paragraph that contains this st atement starts with a sentence introducing the notion of climate variability, which puts the statement more into context.

It is possible that petitioners misinterpreted the IPCC’s statement as s uggesting that the IPCC’s projection was on the basis of climate change al one, given the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s assertion, for example, that IPCC was projecting “i mminent disaster.” While we agree with PBL that the IPCC’s statement could easily mislead readers without the proper context, we note that, before quoting the IPCC’s projection on rain-fed agriculture, EPA’s TSD includes the statement “Agricultural production, including access to fo od, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability [emphasis added] and change.” Therefore, EPA provided the proper context for the IPCC’s conclusion.

With respect to the basis for the conclusion itself, the following excerpts from the three countries’ National Communication reports on the issues of climate variability and change, precipitation, and crop yields provide broad s upport for the Agoumi (2003) statements along with accompanying discussion:

 The National Communication of Morocco states (Kingdom of Morocco, 2001):

The development of climate scenarios for Morocco according to IPCC methodology reveals the following results: . . .

 A trend towards a decrease in aver age annual rainfall volume by about 4% in 2020 compared to 2000 levels. . . .

 An increase in the frequency and intens ity of droughts in the south and the east of the country.

27The first quantitative estimate of poss ible CC [climate change] impacts on water resources in 2020 points to the fact that there would be an average and general decrease in water resources (i n the order of 10 to 15 %...).

The study of CC [climate change] impacts on agriculture (dominated by cereal cultivation) in 2020 unfolds the following re sults: A decrease in cereal yields by 50% in dry years and 10% in normal years.

As the Southeastern Legal Foundation adm its, the numbers from Morocco’s National Communication lend support to the statement in Agoumi (2003) that “studies on the future of vital agriculture in the region ha ve shown the following risks, which are linked to climate change: . . . deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50 per cent during the 2000–2020 period.”

Richard North’s contention (North, 2010, as referred to by the Southeastern Legal Foundation) that “the data appl y to cereal yields only, not crops in general as is implied by the IPCC” is arguable considering that Morocco’s National Communication indicates that agriculture is “dominated by cereal cultivation.” Thus, it is not

unreasonable to use cere al cultivation as a proxy for all of agriculture in this cerealcrop-dominated region.

 The National Communication of Algeria (M inistry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001) states: 1

Because of global warming, we must brace ourselves for chronic climate instability and greater frequency of dr oughts and floods. Droughts damage soils and floods destroy ground c over and contribute to the erosion of soils. With longer spans of time between dry and wet spells comes an even greater impact due to erosion. The southern regions of the country will be most directly impacted by increased temperatures a nd will be subject to the numerous consequences of accelerated desertifi cation. The increased risk of drought presents the greatest challenge as a result of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expect that the desert regions will extend northward in the Maghreb.

The above text provides a clea r qualitative description of the risks climate change pose to agriculture in Algeria. In addition, this information from the National Communication of Algeria provides quantita tive output from a mode l known as CROPWAT, which estimates changes in crop yields using climate change projections obtained from two general circulation models. The Nationa l Communication of Algeria reports:

... one can consider an average reduction in the output cereal of about 5.5 to 6.8%, corresponding mainly to instances of climate change [in 2020]( Ministry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001)

1 The excerpt that follows was profe ssionally translated from French.

28When considering these quantitative cereal yield changes, it is very important to note that these percen tages refer to changes in cereal yields resulting primarily from climate change alone and not climate variability and change combined. The climate and hence precipitation variability in northern Africa can be quite large. For example, in the report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), PBL states “...the [IPCC] authors made plausible that, due to current climate variab ility, the yields in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have been varying annually, including yield reductions of nearly 70% in individual years, in th e period between 2000 and 2006.”

In other words, if these yield reductions resulting from greenhouse gas–induced climate change were superimposed on the yield reductions that might occur during a particularly dry period arising from the regi on’s characteristic precipita tion variability, they would be higher and comparable with the results fr om the Morocco National Communication.

Finally, the Southeastern Legal Foundatio n’s reference to the Algeria National Communication’s projections for net increases in cereal projec tions in 2020 (relative to prior decades) is irrelevant and misleading. These increases are re lated not to climate variability and change but to changing agri cultural practices and technology. Algeria’s

National Communication makes clear that the eff ect of climate change on cereal yields is projected to be negative.

 The National Communication of Tunisia st ates (Republic of Tunisia, 2001):

...Tunisia is in a hydrous stre ss situation close to a shortage, sharpened by a high anthropic pressure. So minor they be , the Climate Changes can so, result in harmful consequences on water resources, on ecosystems depending of water, and

on the different economic activities that n eed large quantities of water such as agriculture and tourism.

By modifying the evaporation and precipitation rate, the global warming will probably affect the hydrous climate bala nce and therefore the Tunisian water resources. In this way, if the intensif ication of the evaporation can lead to a possible important increase of the rain falls , it might not be sufficient to offset the

decrease of the sweet water resources. Moreover, due to the global warming, the rain situation can be characterized by a bigger frequency of rains resulting from torrential storms and downpours, disapp earing generally in streaming waters rather than be absorbed by the soils.

This information in the Tunesian Na tional Communication does not provide any quantitative estimates of climat e variability and/or change on rain-fed agriculture, but the clear qualitative imp lication is that climate changes—both drought and heavy precipitation events—will stress agriculture in Tunisia. We, therefore, find that the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s statement that “Tunisia’s submission concluded the picture was mixed, but they could have an incr ease in rain and agri cultural production” is an overly optimistic interpretation of cl early expressed negative impacts.

29Overall, these three National Communications (Morocco, Algeria, a nd Tunisia) provide qualitative s upport for the fact the climate cha nge will likely stress ra in-fed agriculture in northern Africa, consistent with the portrayal of Agoumi (2003) and th e IPCC. The National Communication of Morocco presents quantitative information consis tent with what is reported by Agoumi (2003) and the IPCC (and hence the TSD), while the National Communication of Algeria provides quantitative information that is consistent with these sources when factoring in precipitation variability in addition to climate change. The National Communication of Tunisia does not provide quantitative information.

Our view of the litera ture behind Agoumi (2003) provides considerable evidence that the

scientific basis for the IPCC’s conclusion is le gitimate. The PBL assessment of the IPCC notes that “...additional explanations could have provided further foundations for the statement, had they been included in [IPCC’s Working Group II] Ch apter 9.” We concur, but the Southeastern Legal Foundation conclusion that “...there is no support for th e IPCC’s dramatic pronouncement on African crop yields” is significantly overstated.

Comment (2-13) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation provides the following reaction to the African rain-fed agriculture projection, which appeared in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010a) and comes from former IPCC chair Robert Watson: “Any such projection [pertaining to African crop yields] should be based on peer-reviewed lite rature from computer modeling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report.”

Response (2-13) : Watson may not have appreciated th at peer-reviewed mode ling studies of climat e change impacts on agriculture in parts of Africa are limited. As the IPCC’s AR4 WGI repo rt states (Chris tensen et al., 2007): “Several climate ch ange projections ba sed on RCM (regional climat e model) simu lations are available for southern Africa, but are much scarcer for ot her regions.” Accordingl y, as we discuss in

Subsection 2.2.4.4 of this RTP document, the IPCC references gray literature in these circumstances. We also note in Response 2-10 th at these studies are not central to the TSD or the Endangerment Finding. Finally, though we discuss some addition al modeling studies pertin ent to Africa in RTP 2- 15, those modeling studie s (Parry et al., 2005 and Hulme et al., 2001) were conducted at the global

and continental scales and contain limited result s pertinent to northern Africa specifically.

Comment (2-14) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that EP A ignored contrary peer-reviewed literature

and submits literature that the Sahel is greening (from National Geographic and several studies) in contrast to “IPCC horror stories” (proje cting reductions in rain-fed agriculture).

Response (2-14) : EPA is aware of the literature cited by the petition er that suggests greening in parts of the Sahara and Sahel (e.g., Seaquisti, et al., 2009; Anyamba, and Tucker, 2005; Hutchinson et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2005). The issue raised by petitioners is not new and was raised and responded to through the public comment process (see Response 2-73 in Volume 2 of the RTC document). Thus, these objections do not meet the test in Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 307(d)(7)(B) that it be impracticable to raise the object ion during the public comment period or the reasons for the

30objection arose between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Nonetheless, we have reviewed these arguments and respond once again.

The fact that precip itation has increased recently in this region, as we note in our TSD in Section 4(d), does not mean that a combination of climat e variability and change could not substantially reduce rain-fed agriculture in the future. The climat e in this region is highly variable and while it has been relatively wet over the past decade or s o, severe drought impacted the region for several decades from the 1960s to the 1990s and dry pattern s could return to the region. As one of the studies (Nicholson, 2005) cited by the petitioner states: “The fl uctuations between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ in the Sahel/Soudan zones are extreme even on decadal a nd multi-decadal time scales.” Therefore, if the current wet period reverses to a dry period, the impacts of rain-fed agriculture on the region could be profound, especially when considering the potential enhancement of the drying from human-induced warm ing (i.e., climate change).

Finally, we note that the literatur e presented relates to impacts out side the United States, and it did not materially impact the determination of endangerment of public health and welfare in the United States. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, th e Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at impacts in th e United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

Comment (2-15) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation suggests that th e IPCC ignored literature that drew different

conclusions on the issue of rain-fed agriculture projections in Afri ca, specifically referring to two studies: Parry et al., 2005 and Hulme et al., 200 1. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states: “Both Parry’s own paper and Hulme’s paper were known to and available to Professor Parry [cochair of IPCC Working Group II] in composing th e WGII Report and the Synthesis Report. Yet, Parry’s WGII report ignored his ow n paper and that of Hulme, whic h did not predict disaster, and instead relied on one that did, the Agoumi pa per, even though it did so incorrectly and improperly and was not peer-reviewed.” The S outheastern Legal Foundati on further notes that Hulme et al. (2001) were careful to note uncer tainties in understanding African climate change, and implies that the IPCC was not as careful.

Response (2-15) : We have reviewed these papers (Parry et al., 2 005, and Hulme et al., 2001) and find that, while not directly comparable with Agoum i (2003), they do not contradict that source. We also find, contrary to the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s asse rtion, that both of these studies were in fact cited by the IPCC, although not always in the same section or context as Agoumi (2003).

The Parry et al. (2005) study repor ts the results of a series of research projects that aimed to evaluate the implications of c limate change for food production and risk of hunger. The analysis in this study is performed at globa l and continental scales rather than the regional scale. This is likely why it is not discussed in Chapter 5 of Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4 (Easterling et al., 2007), where Agoumi (2003) is cited in a sec tion focusing on regional impacts in Africa (specifically on Morocco, Algeria, and T unisia). The Parry et al . (2005) study is cited

31multiple times in Chapter 5 of W orking Group II’s contribution (“Food, Fiber, and Forest Products,” Easterling et al., 2007), wh ich provides a global perspective. Therefore, Parry did not “ignore his own paper” as stated by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

One of the primary conclusions of Parry et al. is that “the region of greatest risk [of losses in food production, and hunger due to climate change] is Africa.” Parry et al. (2005) provide specific cereal yield projections for the 2020s and 2080s resulting from different GHG emission scenarios. They state for the globe: “By the 2020s , small changes in cereal yield are evident in all scenarios, but these fluctuati ons are within historical variati ons.” For the 2080s, Parry et al. (2005) provide projections specifi c to Africa – but not northern Af rica specifically, stating that climate change could reduce cereal yields by up to 30%. Importantly, the ch anges in cereal yield projected for the 2020s and 2080s are driven by GHG-induced climate change and likely do not fully capture interannual precip itation variability which can re sult in large yield reductions during dry periods, as the IPCC (Chr istensen et al., 2007) states: “... there is less confidence in the ability of the AOGCMs (atmosphere-ocean ge neral circulation mo dels) to generate interannual variability in the SST s (sea surface temperatures) of th e type known to affect African rainfall, as evidenced by the fact that ve ry few AOGCMs produce droughts comparable in magnitude to the Sahel droughts of the 1970s and 1980s.” Given the different scopes of the two analyses, it is misleading to state that the Parry et al. projections are inconsistent with the Agoumi (2003) yield projections.

The Hulme et al. (2001) study, which reviews observed (1900–2000) and possible future (2000– 2100) continent-wide changes in te mperature and rainfall over Afri ca, is also not ignored by the IPCC, contrary to the assertion of the petitioner. In fact, it is cited twice in IPCC’s Working Group II Chapter 9 on Africa (Boko et al., 2007):

 Hulme et al. (2001) is cited in a statement a bout the complexity of African climatology: “Other factors that complicate African climat ology include dust aer osol concentrations and sea-surface temperature anomalies, which are particularly important in the Sahel region (Hulme et al., 2001; Prospero a nd Lamb, 2003) and southern Africa (Reason, 2002), deforestation in the equatorial re gion (Semazzi and Song, 2001; Bounoua et al., 2002)...”

 Hulme et al. (2001) is also cite d in a statement pertaining to uncertainties in precipitation projections in the western Sahel (Boko et al ., 2007): “For the wester n Sahel (10 to 18°N, 17.5°W to 20°E), there are still discrepancie s between the models: some projecting a significant drying (e.g., Hulme et al., 2001; Jenkins et al., 20 05) and others simulating a progressive wetting with an expansion of vegetation into the Sahara (Brovkin, 2002; Maynard et al., 2002; Claussen et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004; Haarsma et al., 2005; Kamga et al., 2005; Hoerling et al., 2006).”

These examples demonstrate that the IPCC both cited Hulme et al. (2001) and transparently discussed the complexity of Africa’s climate and the uncertainty in African climate projections. This treatment is appropriate and reasonabl e, contrary to the petitioner’s implication.

32Even in light of the complexities and uncertain ties, Hulme et al. (2001) state that a “w arming climate will nevertheless place additional stresses on water resources [in Africa], whether or not future rainfall is significantly altered” and th ey project reduced precip itation over Tunisia. Hulme et al. (2001) do not, howev er, provide projections for cha nges in cereal yields (from changes in rain-fed agriculture), so their result s cannot be compared directly with Agoumi (2003) or its supporting documents (discussed in Response 2-12).

Overall, the IPCC does not ignore either the Parry et al. (2005) or Hulme et al. (2001) studies. The findings of these studies, while not direct ly comparable with A goumi (2003), are broadly consistent. Hulme et al. (2001) project increased drying over nor thern Africa while Parry et al. (2005) project an increased risk of reduced cereal yields over all of Africa. The petitioner’s claim

that IPCC was not careful or acte d inappropriately in this rega rd is not confirmed by careful

review of the material.

2.1.8 Summary

The small number of real or alleged errors in the IPCC report is not materially relevant for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Neither of the two errors that are verifiable (the percentage of the

Netherlands below sea level and th e projections for Himalayan glacier s) is relevant to the United

States and neither is containe d within EPA’s endangerment record. Although it is unfortunate when any error occurs, two errors in a nearly 3,000-page study are not evidence of a complete breakdown of the IPCC’s review process, contrary to petitioners’ suggestions.

The remaining alleged errors or unsupported statements have not been shown to be erroneous and can be traced to findings in the gray literatu re from which they were derived. As discussed

further in Subsection 2.2.4.4 in this volume and previously in Volume 1 of the RTC, the IPCC provides guidance on how and when to use gray literature, and petitione rs do not demonstrate that the guidance was not followed. There is no de facto assumption that all gray literature is incorrect or suspect, and an examination of the in stances raised by petitioners demonstrates that the specific allegations of petitio ners are unfounded. Furthermore, the statements at issue drawn from the gray literature have no material rele vance to conclusions supporting EPA’s Findings, as explained in RTP Subsection 2.1.1.

In conclusion, the evidence cite d by petitioners does not undermin e the overall credibility and reliability of the scientific conclusions reli ed upon and underlying EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

332.2 Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Ag enda and Is Not Objective and Impartial

2.2.1 Overview

Several petitioners argue that the e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and other information that has arisen since publicati on of the Endangerment Finding, show that a select group of influential authors who wrote, contributed to, or reviewed parts of IPCC assessment reports (or the studies on which the assessment reports were based) were not objective and impartial while developing the reports. Several petitioners also argue that

the CRU e-mails confirm that the IPCC and some of its authors and reviewers have a policy agenda and are tailoring the science to suit that ag enda. The petitioners a llege that the e-mails show that the peer-review and report deve lopment processes employed by the IPCC are “fundamentally corrupt,” lack scie ntific integrity, are policy pres criptive, and do not yield “true” consensus conclusions regarding the state of th e science. The petiti oners request that EPA

reconsider its reliance on the IPCC assessment re ports that were used as the basis for the Endangerment Finding.

As discussed in detail below, after reviewing the petitioners’ arguments, EPA finds that the evidence and arguments provided by petitioners do not support th eir conclusion that the peerreview and assessment report processes employed by the IPCC were “fundamentally corrupt” and policy prescriptive. Further, the petitione rs’ arguments, which for the most part rely on selective use of the CRU e-mails, misinterpretat ions of the e-mails, and quotations from press articles, do not show that either the IPCC pee r-review and report development processes were inadequately designed or that th ey were not implemented properly. We note that several of the petitioners’ arguments are not new; many of thes e comments were submitted and responded to in the process of developing the Findings.

2.2.2 Background

Several petitioners criticize the IPCC’s report development and peer-review procedures. We respond specifically to each allegation in th e sections that follow. EPA received similar comments during notice and comment on the Endange rment Findings. In Volume 1 of the RTC document, we responded in detail to these comme nts, describing the IPCC’s report development and peer-review procedures. However, to provid e context for evaluating the merit of these more recent allegations, in this background section we revisit the structure and procedures employed by the IPCC in developing their reports.

In response to the allegations raised against it, the IPCC released th e following statement in December 2009 describing their report developm ent process from beginning to end (IPCC, 2010a).

The assessment process begins with a Scopi ng Meeting attended by scientific experts whose task it is to outline the report. Th e IPCC Bureau selects the experts attending the Scoping Meeting after an open call for nomin ations to Governments and IPCC observer organizations. The Bureau consists of expe rts elected by an IPCC Plenary composed of

all WMO and UNEP member nations. The outline is then approved by Working Group

34Sessions and endorsed by the Plenary. A call fo r nomi nations of authors for the report is sent out to Governments and observer orga nizations. The individual Working Group Bureaus select the authors for respective contributions to th e Assessment Report, ensuring that the composition of the author t eams reflects a range of views, scientific expertise and geographical di versity. Over the ensuing 3-4 years, writing teams collaborate on drafting chapters – including f our Lead Author meetings, plus chapter meetings as necessary. The author teams prep are two externally revi ewed drafts and then a final version of their respective chapters. All chapters undergo a rigorous writing and open review process to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robus t peer review processes or fr om other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review . Additional procedures are provided for

information found in sources that have not b een published or peer-reviewed. In these cases, authors and chapter teams should cr itically assess and revi ew the quality and validity of each source befo re incorporating results.

The First Order Draft is subject to a form al Expert Review, where any expert is encouraged to comment on all aspects of the dr aft, including, but not limited to, issues of interpretation, missed literatu re, and presentation. Author teams must make a written response, explaining how they responded to each comment in developing the next draft. A Second Order Draft is compiled based on the comments received during the Expert Review. This draft undergoes a second combined formal Expert and Government

Review. Author teams have to react to the second round of review comments as well and prepare the final draft, taking into account all the comments received. The entire review process is overseen by a team of 2-3 independent Review Edito rs for each chapter, whose role is limited to overseeing the reviews, en suring the thoroughness of the responses. All the AR4 review comments and responses by th e author teams are available online (IPCC, 2006a).

In parallel, the Summary for Policymakers a nd the Technical Summary are prepared by authors selected from chapter writing team s. The Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary undergo a formal Expert and Government Review and are revised based on the review comments. Again, 2-3 Re view Editors oversee the review process for the Technical Summary. The Summary for Policymakers is then distributed to the

Governments for final comment. The Summ ary for Policymakers undergoes a line-byline approval process by Governments during a multi-day meeting. The Governments

must reach consensus before text is approved. After the Working Group Session approves the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC Plenary then accepts the entire underlying Report (including th e individual chapters and Technical Summary).

To ensure objectivity, transparency, and in formation quality, the IPCC’s report development procedures (IPCC, 1999) clearly describe the ro les and responsibilities of coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contribu ting authors, expert reviewers, and review editors in report development. It states:

351. LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To be responsible for the production of desi gnated sections addressi ng items of the work

program on the basis of the be st scientific, technical a nd socio-economic information

available.

Comment: Lead Authors will typically work as small gr oups which have responsibility for ensuring that the various components of their sect ions are brought together on time, are of uniformly high quality and conform to any ove rall standards of styl e set for the document

as a whole.

The task of Lead Authors is a demanding one and in recognition of this the names of Lead Authors will appear prominently in the final Report. During the final stages of Report preparation, when the workload is often particularly heavy and when Lead Authors are heavily dependent upon each other to read and edit material, and to agree to changes promptly, it is essential that the wo rk should be accorded the highest priority.

The essence of the Lead Authors’ task is synthesis of material drawn from available

literature as defined in Section 4.2.3. Lead Au thors, in conjunction with Review Editors, are also required to take account of expe rt and government review comments when revising text. Lead Authors may not necessarily write original text themselves, but they must have the proven ability to develop text that is scientifically, technically and socioeconomically sound and that faithfully represen ts, to the extent that this is possible, contributions by a wide variety of experts. The ability to work to deadlines is also a necessary practical requirement. Lead Author s are required to record in the Report views

which cannot be reconciled with a cons ensus view but which are nonetheless scientifically or technically valid.

Lead Authors may convene meetings with Cont ributing Authors, as appropriate, in the preparations of their sections or to discu ss expert or government review comments and to suggest any workshops or expert meetings in their relevant areas to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs. Th e names of all Lead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

2. COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To take overall responsibility for coor dinating major sections of a Report

Comment: Coordinating Lead Authors will be Lead Authors with the added responsibility of ensuring that major sections of the Report are completed to a high standard, are collated and delivered to the Working Group/Task For ce Bureau Co-Chairs in a timely manner and conform to any overall standard s of style set for the document.

Coordinating Lead Authors will play a leadi ng role in ensuring that any crosscutting

scientific or technical issu es which may involve severa l sections of a Report are addressed in a complete and coherent manner a nd reflect the latest information available.

36The skills and resources required of Coordi nating Lead Authors are those required of

Lead Authors with the ad ditional organizational skills needed to coordinate a section of a Report. The names of all Coordinating L ead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

3. CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Function: To prepare technical information in the form of text, graphs or data for assimilation by

the Lead Authors into the draft section.

Comment: Input from a wide range of contributors is a key element in the success of IPCC assessments, and the names of all contributors will be acknowledged in the Reports. Contributions are sometimes solicited by Lead Authors but unprompted contributions are encouraged.

Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer reviewed and internationally available literature, and w ith copies of any unpublished material cited; clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the

contributions. For material available in el ectronic format only, the location where such material may be accessed should be cited. C ontributed material may be edited, merged and if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall draft text.

4. EXPERT REVIEWERS

Function: To comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/tec hnical/socio-economic

content and the overall scientific/technical /socio-economic balance of the drafts.

Comment: Expert reviewers will comment on the te xt according to their own knowledge and experience. They may be nominated by Governments, national and international organizations, Working Group/Task Force Bureau, Lead Authors and Contributing

Authors.

5. REVIEW EDITORS

Function: Review Editors will assist the Working Group/Task Force Bureau in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appr opriate consideration, advise lead authors

on how to handle contentious/cont roversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.

Comment:

There will be one or two Review Editors per chapter (including their executive summaries) and per technical summary. In orde r to carry out these tasks, Review Editors will need to have a broad understanding of the wider scientific and technical issues being addressed. The workload will be particularly heavy during the final stages of the Report preparation. This includes attending those meetings where writing teams are considering

37the results of the two review rounds. Review Editors are not actively engaged in drafting Reports and cannot serve as reviewers of thos e chapters of which they are Authors.

Review Editors can be me mbers of a Work ing Group/Task Force Bureau or outside experts agreed by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau. Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report. Revi ew Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and wher e appropriate, will be requested to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IP CC to communicate their findings from the review process and to assistin finalizing the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports and Synthe sis Reports. The names of all Review Editors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

In implementing these procedures across the three working groups of the IPCC’s AR4, 1,250 scientists (450 lead authors and more than 800 contributing authors) from 130 countries served as authors and more than 2,500 experts pr ovided over 90,000 review comments. Many petitioners specifically critique the practices employed by IPCC Working Group I, for which

there were 152 lead authors and 26 review editors from 32 countries, in which 6,000 peerreviewed publications were cited, for which 625 experts from 42 countries provided over 30,000 review comments, and for which the Summary for Policymakers was approved line by line by 113 countries. Furthermore, the petitioners sp ecifically critique the practices employed by Chapter 6 (Jansen et al., 2007) authors and re viewers of Working Group I, which had two coordinating authors and 14 lead authors from 12 countries, 33 contributi ng authors from nine countries, and two review editors who oversaw the handling of more than 2,900 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review. The petitioners also critique the practices employed by Chapter 9 (Hegerl et al., 2007) auth ors and reviewers of Working Group I, which had two coordinating authors and seven lead auth ors from nine countries , 44 contributing authors from 12 countries, and three review editors who oversaw the handling of about 2,600 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review.

The IPCC processes have been developed for th e express purpose of ensuring integrity and avoiding any possibility of bias in the conclusions drawn from the sc ientific literature. The level of detail and clarity of the requirements—espe cially concerning repor t review, the specific responsibilities of review editors to assess the quality of au thor responses to comment, and the transparency of the record of comments and responses—provide the foun dation for ensuring that the reports are credible and sound.

The IPCC’s peer-review and report development pr ocesses are very important components of the overall integrity, quality, transpar ency, and objectivity of its reports . As stated in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) for the Endangerment Finding, EPA relied on the assessment literature because:

they 1) are very recent and represent th e current state of knowledge on GHG emissions, climate change science, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts; 2) have assessed numerous individual, peer-reviewed studies in order to draw general co nclusions about the state of science; 3) have been reviewed and formally accepted, commissioned, or in some cases

38authored by U.S. governme nt agencies and in dividual government scientists; and 4) they reflect and convey the consensus co nclusions of expert authors.

Finally, we note the following recent IPCC stat ement regarding their report development

process:

The IPCC procedures, which are regularly re viewed and amended by the IPCC members, have served the international community eff ectively for over 20 years. The conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports, and especia lly the Fourth Assessment Report, are as solid as careful science can make them. They reflect the current st ate of knowledge about one of the most complex and important of all topics -- climate change science (IPCC, 2010b).

2.2.3 Responses to Arguably New Objections Raised by the Petitioners

The petitioners submit four arguably “new” obj ections along with excerpts from the CRU emails related to: 1) authorship and reviewer roles among IPCC personnel; 2) an e-mail allegedly showing that IPCC authors were aware that citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to present a neutral overview of the science; 3) allegations that the IPCC is a biased organizati on, including claims that IPCC lead authors encouraged other authors to focus on policy-prescriptive science; and 4) allegations that

IPCC authors forced consensus and altered the co ntents of the assessment reports to eliminate any suggestion of non-consensus. We respond to each of these allegations in the subsections

below.

2.2.3.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Aut horship and Reviewer Roles Among IPCC

Personnel

Comment (2-16) : Peabody Energy argues that the CRU e-mails s how inappropriate authorship roles in the development of Chapter 6 (“Paleoclimate”) of Wo rking Group I’s contribution to AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007). The petitioner alle ges that Michael Mann (Penn State) and Thomas Crowley (University of Edinburgh) contribut ed significantly to the development of the chapter, but were not listed as contributing authors. In addition, the petitioner alle ges that Mann and Crowley were inappropriately given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the chapter outside the formal review process, thereby compro mising their objectivity as review ers and introducing bias to the chapter development process.

Response (2-16) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submissions a nd finds that the evidence and arguments they provide do not support the conclusion s they draw. The content of the e-mails does not show that Michael Mann or Thomas Crowley contributed substantially to the writing or key development decisions of Chapter 6 (Jansen et al., 2007), or that they introdu ced any bias. Chapter 6 assesses paleoclimatic data and knowledge of how the cl imate system changes over inter-annual to

millennial time scales and how well these variat ions can be simulated with climate models.

39 On Decem ber 23, 2004, Michael Mann wrote to Ke ith Briffa (Chapter 6 lead author) and stated, “Thanks again for your phone call, a nd the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can. I’m perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.” 2
He also sent some website links regarding arguments that some ha ve made against his work. In a follow-up e-mail that same day 3 , Mann again writes to Briffa, stating “I went ahead and tried to make some constructive comments on what you sent...Let me say I think it’s shaping up very ni cely--looks like it should be a significant improvement on the ‘01 report. You’ve handled the various contro versies and points of dispute delicately and adeptly...I made a dozen or so minor comments--please make use of them as you see fit...Thanks again for including me in a nd giving me an opportunity to comment.” 4

These e-mails show that Mann served as an in formal contributor on a preliminary draft of Chapter 6 (Jansen et. al, 2007), and the IP CC’s response to comments document for Chapter 6 confirm that Mann was also a formal reviewer (IPCC, 2006a). The petitioners allege that Mann could not ha ve objectively reviewed the ch apter if he also provided information for its development, but these e- mails do not show that Mann “significantly contributed” to the development of this chapter. In fact, the evidence provided by the petitioner indicates that Mann participated at most in a limited way as an informal contributor, providing a small amou nt of information, such as Web links, to the authors.

This level of involvement would not warrant being listed as a contributing author, as Mann was involved neither with assessing the u nderlying literature nor with writing text for the chapter. The IPCC does not require info rmal contributors of this nature to be acknowledged as authors in the final report. There is no basis to c onclude that listing him as an author would have changed the content or conclusions of the chapter in any way.

There is also no basis to concl ude that his comments were bias ed or lacked objectivity, or that the resulting chapter was bi ased or lacked objectivity. The fact that Mann provided the Chapter 6 authors with a limited amount of information does not mean that his objectivity was compromised during the formal review process. Petitioners appear to conclude otherwise, but nothing they provide supports drawing such a broad conclusion. Finally, we note that the petitioner does not provide any examples of Mann’s review comments on this chapter that they claim demonstrate bias or lack of objectivity.

 Several e-mails from June and July of 2005 (e-mail files 1122300990.txt 5

, 1121869083.txt 6 , and 111886641.txt) 7 show that Thomas Crowley was consulted by Keith Briffa and Jonathan Overpeck (Chapt er 6 coordinating lead author) regarding a medieval warming figure that Crowley had b een developing, which Briffa and Overpeck

3 E-mail file 110295643 6.txt, (December 13, 2 004), page 763, line 13 of PDF ve rsion entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

3 E-mail file 1103828684. txt, (December 23, 2004), page 771, line 37 of PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

4 E-mail file 1103828684. txt, (December 23, 2004), page 771, line 37 of PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

5 E-mail file 1122300990.txt, (July 25,2005), page 952, lin e 33 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

6 E-mail file 1121869083.txt, (July 20,2005), page 916, lin e 42 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

7 E-mail file 1118866419.txt, (June 15, 2005), page 889, line 32 of PDF vers ion entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

40were possibly interested in using for Chapter 6. There is no evidence in the e-mails that Crowley helped write or devel op the chapter in any other cap acity. In f act, the e-mails simply document an interaction between th e lead authors and Crowley, in which the authors are seeking clarification regarding a particular figure. Such inquiries are completely appropriate and in no way compromi se the objectivity and credibility of that chapter’s development. It appears that Crowley provided useful background and advice on the use of his figure, and the e-mails provi de no support that he contributed significant text or had any editorial power over the chapter.

Given the technical nature of this field of climate science, it is reasonable and expected that IPCC authors might require detail or clarification rega rding some of the underlying studies. Therefore they might need to consult the authors of specific studies to better

understand how the results were achieved or to ask questions regarding how the data were applied, as was the case in this situa tion. Petitioners have not explained how the mere fact that this type of corres pondence occurred between Crowley and Briffa/Overpeck lead to the conclusion th at bias was introduced to the chapter development process. The evidence provi ded by the petitioner does not support this

argument.

 In the same set of e-mails, Crowley also states , “I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA [contributing author] list, just because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of im partiality if he has now been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on th is one to be sure - still happy to provide advice.” The petitioner alleges th at Crowley’s e-mail signifies th at he knew of the risk of compromising objectivity and did so anyway by both contributing si gnificantly to the chapter’s development and being an expert reviewer. The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show th at Crowley participated in any manner beyond having a limited role in answering questions concerni ng a figure he had deve loped, or that his doing so compromised his objectivity as a revi ewer. The petitioners do not, for example, provide any examples of hi s review comments on this chapter that they claim

demonstrate bias or lack of objectivity. As stated above, IPCC does not require informal contributors to be acknowledged in the fina l report. The petiti oners’ evidence does not show that Crowley’s informal contribu tion and correspondence with the Chapter 6 authors led to improper and erroneous changes or conclusions in the report. Furthermore, after the exchange of these e-mails, Overp eck wrote: “Thanks for moving this forward and making sure we do it right (i.e., wit hout any bias, or perception of bias)”. 8 This demonstrates that the coordinating lead au thor understood IPCC’s guidelines, ensured that they were properly imple mented, and therefore avoided any lack of or lapse in objectivity.

The petitioner draws broad conclusions from thes e e-mails about the inte ntions of the authors and the content of the IPCC chapters, in an attempt to discredit overall the chapter development and review processes of the IPCC, and implicitl y the IPCC reports themselves. However, the emails cited show that Mann and Crowley had very limited, informal roles in the chapter and the

8 E-mail file 1121869083.txt, (July 20 , 2005), page 918, line 8 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

41e-ma ils provide no evidence to support asserti ons of bias or a lack of objectivity. The

interactions that occurred are allowable under IPCC procedur es, and petitioners have not demonstrated that the events in question changed the content or conclusions of the chapter in any

way.

The Muir Russell investigative panel summarized information Briffa gave them on this issue, describing Briffa as having said (Russell, 2010):

There is no proscription in the IPCC rules to prevent the author team seeking expert

advice when and where needed. The Techni cal Support Unit (TSU) and the CLAs of Chapter 6 agree that the author team was a llowed to seek such advice. Copies of communications from both CLAs (Jansen and Overpeck) and the IPCC WG1 TSU are provided by Briffa (and published on the webs ite) to provide support to Briffa’s claim that his actions did not contravene IPCC procedures.

Even if the petitioner’s allegations that Mann and Crowley “significantly contributed” to the development of Chapter 6 were true—which we do not believe to be the case—and even if this contribution were atypical, this doe s not lead to the conclusion that the scientific integrity of the conclusions from the chapter was compromised. The evidence provided by petitioners does not indicate errors or significant changes that resulted from invol vement of these persons, and does not demonstrate that the final product was either inaccurate or lacked impartiality, nor does the petitioner to any such result. We find that Ch apter 6 was developed in an objective manner, is accurate, and represents the best av ailable scientific information.

Comment (2-17) : Peabody Energy argues that the CRU e-mails show that IPCC lead authors “viewed their work as advocacy, rather than scientific analysis, wh ich could be marshaled against opponents.” In support of this argument, the petitioner provide s a February 2005 e-mail from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, which states “I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor comments). It looks very good at present--will be inte resting to see how they deal

w/ the contrarian criticisms--t here will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that).”

Response (2-17) : The petitioner’s interpretation of the e-mail statement is unfo unded. The e-mail from Michael

Mann 9 describes his reaction to a preliminary draf t of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) section of Chapter 6 (“Palaeoclimate”) of Working Grou p I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007). First, it is important to note that Mi chael Mann and Phil Jones were neither lead nor contributing authors for Chapter 6, as the petitione r implies. Therefore, any allegations that

Mann and Jones used their author ship authority to advocate ag ainst critics of Chapter 6’s findings are unfounded. For our response to allegati ons that Michael Mann ha d a significant role in the development of Chapter 6, please see Resp onse 2-16 in this section. Moreover, the e-mail does not support the petitioner’s allegation that Mann and Jones were viewing their work as “advocacy” to use “against opponents.” Rather, Ma nn is simply stating his opinion regarding

9 E-mail file 1107454306.txt, (Feb. 3, 2005), page 821, line 44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

42how the paleoclimate chapter shou ld be written and that he lo oked forward to seeing how the Chapter 6 authors dealt with cr iticism s. At no point does Mann suggest that the scientific findings be manipulated to suppor t a pre-determined view. It is clear that he is merely expressing his hope for how the authors will respond to comments they (not Mann) are tasked with addressing.

Comment (2-18) : The State of Texas argues that the IPCC scie ntists who wrote the CRU e-mails “wielded tremendous authority over the IPCC.” In support of their argument, the petitioners state, “For example, AR4 cites Dr. Jones’s work 38 times in 21 chapters of two Working Groups, Mann is cited 27 times in 7 chapters of two Working Groups, Briffa is cited 23 times in 9 chapters of two Working Groups, Wigley is cited 66 times in 18 chapters of all three Working Groups, Overpeck is cited 15 times in 5 chapters of two Working Groups, Osborn is cited 30 times in 10 chapters of two Working Groups, Trenberth is cited 58 times in 18 chapters of two Working Groups, and Santer is cited 26 times in 8 chapters of tw o Working Groups, just to name a few.” The petitioner goes on to argue that “Thus, to the extent their objectiv ity, impartiality, truthfulness, and scientific integrity are compromised or in doubt, so too is the objectivity, impartiality, truthfulness, and scientific in tegrity of the IPCC report, th e CRU temperature data, the NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati on] temperature data, and other scientific

research that is shown to have re lied on their compromised research.”

Response (2-18) : Many of the scientists who wrote the CRU e-mails were and still are important figures in the field of climate change science. It is impor tant to note that the statistics provided by the petitioner regarding how frequently the studies of these scientists (e .g., Phil Jones and Michael Mann) were cited in AR4 are neither surp rising nor unreasonable. The IPCC AR4 (IPCC, 2007a) cited over 18,000 peer-reviewed studies. Ther efore these statistics (e.g., “Wigley is cited 66 times in 18 chapters of all th ree Working Groups, Overpeck is c ited 15 times in 5 chapters of two Working Groups”) do not suppor t the petitioner’s allegation that these studies were cited too frequently and that these scie ntists therefor e “wielded tremendous authority over the IPCC.” These scientists are some of the most well-publ ished climate scientists in the world, and their work was synthesized across the three Working Group reports of the AR4. We conclude that these facts by themselves demonstrate nothing othe r than the fact that th e IPCC, as intended, is assessing available, peer-reviewed literature. The simple fact that these individuals are wellpublished and that their studies are cited in AR4 does not imply “tremendous authority.” The petitioner provided no additional eviden ce to support their allegation.

As explained in Section 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume, over 1,250 scientists from 130 countries served as authors for the AR4. It was these hundreds of authors who had the authority to assess the available literature, summarize the st ate of the science, and reference the studies in the AR4. The IPCC has robust procedures to ensu re that the assessment reports are objective, unbiased, and represent the state of the science regarding climat e change. These procedures include processes to ensure that no one individual or group of indi viduals exerts disproportionate influence in developing any piece of the assessment re ports. Further, as addressed in the specific responses in Section 2.2.3.1 of this Volume, the evidence provided by the petitioners does not show that these procedures were flawed or improperly implemented. For more information on

43these procedures, please see Volume 1, Section 1, of the RTC document and this section (2.2) of

the RTP document.

The mere fact that someone is frequently cited is also not evidence for th e petitioners’ argument. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the re ferenced literature is bi ased or flawed, which they have not done, as compared to the straightforward view th at the studies produced by these scientists are very robus t and of high quality. The petitioner is making allegations without giving due regard for the content of the actual sc ience, which we thoroughly reviewed in the Endangerment Finding’s RTC documents and ag ain in the response to both the new and previously submitted comments of the petitioners.

Please see the Denial and Volume 1 of the RTP do cument for our response to specific allegations regarding what the CRU e-mails mean for the objectivity and integrity of the IPCC assessments, the CRU temperature data, the NOAA temperature data , and other research that is based on this

information.

Comment (2-19) : Peabody Energy argues that “An IPCC chapter author should not peer review journal articles that he intends to include in his chapte r because of the clear conflict of interest. The chapter author is supposed to be providing a neutral summary of th e science, not advancin g his own view of the science. If the chapter author reviews papers th at are then included in hi s chapter, he could be seen as advancing his own agenda both in his revi ew of the paper and its selection for inclusion in the IPCC report.” To support their argument, the petitioner provides a July 2005 e-mail from Phil Jones to John Christy that states, “I am revi ewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual

standards” 10 . The petitioner goes on to state that “Jone s reviewed papers so that he could get them published and therefore could refer to them in AR4 Chapter 3. Th e petitioner concludes

that “this is indeed ‘circular’ a nd violates his supposed neutrality both as an AR4 author and as reviewer of the paper.” As additional support, Peabody Energy references another e-mail dated May 20, 2005, from Phil Jones to Michael Mann re garding Jones’ review of a temperature reconstruction paper for Climatic Change

. a

papers that he favored.” 11 The petitioner states: “One wonders just how unbiased Jones’ review of this pa per really was, particularly in light of Jones’ admission that he applied less than stringent review standards to

Response (2-19) : First, we find it unconvincing and unclear why, according to the petitioner, an author of an IPCC chapter should not serve as a peer reviewer of a journal paper that in turn may be incorporated into that IPCC chapter. Thus, we disagree wi th the petitioner’s allegations that Phil Jones introduced bias and reviewed these papers unobjectiv ely in an effort to advance his own views of the science. Jones did not appoint himself to revi ew the papers for the journals, but was selected

10 E-mail file 1120593115.txt, (July 5, 2005), page 906, lines 21-22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

11 E-mail file 1116611126.txt, (May 20, 2005), page 88 2, line 45 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

44by an independent editor to be a reviewer based on his experience and expertise related to

climate scie nce. Since Jones is well-published and a prominent paleoclimate scientist, it is reasonable and logical to concl ude that the editor w ho chose him was aware of his work on the AR4 and judged that it was not an inherent conflict of interest. In addition, Jones would not have been the only reviewer for those studies. T ypically, between two and f our independent experts are selected to review manuscripts. Therefore, Jones would not have had the authority or power to coerce or bias the process to “advance his own agenda.” The petitioner is inferring that Jones was trying to do this, but provides no evidence th at Jones’ actions resu lted in papers being unjustly published when they should not have be en, or papers being unj ustly cited in the AR4 when they should not have been.

The petitioner’s claim that an e-mail between Jone s and Mann represents an “admission that he [Jones] applied less than string ent review standards to papers that he favored” is also unsupported by evidence. Rather, th e petitioner misinterprets and mi srepresents Jones’ e-mail to Michael Mann regarding Jones’ review of a temperature reconstruction paper for Climatic Change . This e-mail sent on May 20, 2005, reads:

Mike, Just reviewed Caspar’s [Amman, of the Nati onal Center for Atmospheric Research] paper with Wahl [Eugene Wahl of the National Clim atic Data Center] for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good. Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM [Steve McIntyre, formerly of Northw est Exploration Co., and Ross Mc Kitrick of the University of Guelph] have gone wrong. Should keep them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume you know all about this. Should make Keith’s life in Ch 6 easy! Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer [John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alab ama in Huntsville] have admitted at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong!! They used the wrong sign for the diurnal correction! Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface but within error bands. Between you and me, we’ll be going with RSS in Ch 3 and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models . Should make Ch 3 a doddle now! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then. RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake! The skeptic pillars are tumbling!

Cheers Phil 12

Despite the allegations by the petitioner, this e-ma il shows no indication that Jones’ review of the Ammann and Wahl paper for Climatic Change was biased or that he did not employ rigorous standards of objectivity and neutra lity in evaluating the merits of the studies. The e-mail simply indicates that Jones approved of the findings by the authors and that he found the results to have important implications regarding the validity of temperature rec onstructions. The petitioner is significantly skewing the meaning of these e-mails and misrepresenting what Jones said to infer improper conduct in his review of the paper.

12 E-mail file 1116611126.txt, (May 20, 2005), page 882, lines 6-15 of the PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

45Finally, the evidence provided by Peabody Energy does not support their a llegation that Jones

was biased or failed to objectively assess the avai lable literature for the AR4 as a result of having reviewed these papers. From our review of the evidence, we conclude only that Jones reviewed

the studies and that he was also an author for Chapter 3 (“Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”) of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Trenberth et al., 2007). For that chapter, over 65 authors from 16 countries were tasked with reviewing and assessing the best available sc ience regarding observed climat e change and distilling this information into key messages that capture the state of knowledge. Once again, Jones would not have had the authority or power to coerce or bias the process to “advance his own agenda” by developing conclusions that do not represent the state of the science. Chapter 3, like all of the AR4, went through multiple rounds of expert an d government review, in which more than 3,400 comments were received and addressed, to ensure that the conclusions accurately represent and summarize the best available science. The large number of authors, the multiple rounds of expert and government reviews, and the detailed approval process are al l deliberate procedures developed by the IPCC to ensure that the report s maximize objectivity, cr edibility, and quality. See Section III.A of the Findings, Volume 1 of the RTC document and Section 2.2.2 (Background) of the RTP document for more information on the IPCC’s report development procedures.

2.2.3.2 Allegations That Citing One’s Ow n Papers Compromises Objectivity

Comment (2-20) : Peabody Energy states that IPCC au thors cited their own papers extensively in the AR4, which invalidates the purpose of these assessment reports, which are designed to objectively look across the literature and convey the state of th e science. The petiti oner cites an e-mail by Jonathan Overpeck from June 2005 13 as evidence that allegedly “reveals that the IPCC authors were aware that citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to pres ent a neutral ove rview of the science.” The petitioner further provides a statistic regarding th e frequency at which the author s of Chapter 9 of Working Group I of AR4 cited their own papers : “About 40% of the papers cite d in Chapter 9 were written by Chapter 9 authors.”

Response (2-20) : It should come as no surprise that many papers by Chapter 9 authors were cited in the chapter. IPCC authors are chosen in part based on their ex pertise on a particular su bject and the degree to which they have published recent, high-quality pa pers in the field. Moreover, in some areas (e.g., medieval warming period analysis, ocean acidification), there can be limited studies outside the research published by particular scie ntists, including IPCC authors, on which to base summaries of the science. Contrary to the petiti oner’s allegations, this does not mean that IPCC authors were not providing neutral and objective summa ries of the science. In fact, the petitioner provides no evidence that the practic e of citing one’s own papers led to biased conclusions in the AR4. Given the rigor of the IPCC review pro cess, described in Sect ion 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume, it is indeed highly unlikely that an author’s improper citation of his or her own work would escape notice.

13 E-mail file 1120014836.txt, (June 28, 2005), page 90 0, line 32 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

46Moreover, the e-mail from Jonathan Overpeck (coordinating lead author of Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4), does not support the petitioner’s assumption of misconduct, and instead shows that Overpeck wa s encouraging the author s of that chapter to

minimize citing their own papers to the extent po ssible, and to only do so when “absolutely necessary.” Overpeck’s awareness that the auth ors “citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to present a neutral overview of

the science” does not mean that such citation actually was for the alleged improper purpose— especially when the e-mail demonstrates that Overpeck intentionally took steps to avoid impropriety, or even the appear ance of impropriety. The evidence provided by petitioners does

not show that the authors cited their own studies in order to advance thei r own policy views; in fact, it shows they were cautioned to avoid citin g their own studies except where absolutely necessary and appropriate. The full text of Overpeck’s e-mail is provided here:

Hi all - thanks Fortunat and Stefan for mo re debate on the 1470. Sounds like the final decision is up to Eystein, but I can guess the way he’s thinking. With regard to refs - remember that our goal is to cut the number of references significantly. Since this is an assessment and not a review, we can delete all but the most recent and comprehensive references. I don’t like cutting out the origin al refs any more than you, but we just don’t have room, and its more important to have text than exhaustive references. Our colleagues will hopefully understand, and if they don’t then they need to do an ego check. It’s more important that we make an impact with policy makers rather than with citation indices. Does this make sense? In any cas e, please help make sure we trim the total references DOWN in number by a significant number. This is not happening [to] the degree it should. Also, please not[e] that in the US, the US Congress is questioning

whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to champion their own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and s cary, but if our goal is to get policy makers (liberal and conservative alike) to take our chap ter seriously, it will only hurt our effort if we cite too many of our own pa pers (perception is often re ality). PLEASE do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and pl ease do not cite your pa pers unless they are absolutely needed. Common sense, but it isn’ t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so we save needed space, and al so so we don’t get perceived as self serving or worse. Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I’ve gone off the deep end. Thanks, peck PS - this is not to say anything critical of the refs Fortunat is suggesting - we must cite the most relevant papers, and we must be as up to date as possible. 14

Regarding the statistics submitted, the petitioner ha s not provided any evidence that the Chapter 9 authors cited their own studies more frequently than would be appropriate given the number of peer-reviewed and published studies on this par ticular climate science topic (understanding and attributing climate change in th e case of Chapter 9), and the stat istics alone, without context, prove nothing. More than 50 authors from 15 diff erent countries contributed to the development of Chapter 9. Given the large number of perspe ctives and the wide-rang ing expertise of this group, it is not surprising that 40% of the papers were written by th e chapter’s authors. Contrary

14 E-mail file 1120014836.txt, (June 28, 2005), page 90 1, line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

47to the petitioner’s allegations, and consistent with the IPCC’s report d evelopment guidelines as described in Volume 1 of the RTC document, the statistics provided by the petitioner show that the most qualified and experienced personnel contributed to the de velopment of this chapter. When read in full, Overpeck’s email clearly shows that he was taking deliberate actions to ensure that the science was presented in an objective and unbiased manner.

We note that the petitioners do not provide or re ference any studies that they say should have been included instead. Importantly, petitioners again fail to show how the allegedly irregular practice that they challenge resu lted in conclusions that are in accurate or c ontrary to the

consensus science.

2.2.3.3 Allegations That IPCC Is Biased

Comment (2-21) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Southe astern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, and the Ohio Coal Association argue that Jonathan Overpeck, the coordinating lead author for Chapter 6 (“Palaeoclimate”) of Working Gr oup I’s contribution to the AR4, encouraged contributing authors to focus on fi ndings that are most policy rele vant (thereby, according to the petitioners, “supporting preconceived” assessments of the science), and that he did not encourage open and neutral presentations of the science. The petitioners draw this conclusion from an email written by Overpeck and Eystein Jansen (the ot her coordinating lead author) to the lead and contributing authors for Chapter 6, which states, “With respect to te xt, try hard to get it down to size, and to ensure that it is FOCUSED on only that science which is policy relevant. ALL TEXT should support an Exec Summary Bullet” 15

.

15 E-mail file 1121392136.txt, (July 14, 2005), Page 912, Line 35 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

48Response (2-21) : The Overpeck/Jansen e-mail to Chapter 6 authors i ndicates that he encouraged them to focus on the findings that are most policy relevant. However, “policy re levant and compelling” does not mean or imply “policy prescriptiv e,” as alleged by the petitioners. “Policy relevant” means the neutral and objective presentation of scientific, technica l, and socio-economic factors that are relevant to the issues or policies that policymakers care about. This is to be contrasted with other issues that are less relevant to policymaker s and thus less appropriate for these types of assessment reports, which aim to objectively and thoroughly synthesize scientific information to support development of informed policies. “Po licy relevant” is completely different from “policy prescriptive,” which refers to the presentation of scientific information with the aim of advancing a particular public policy agenda.

The e-mail from Overpeck and Jansen does not support petitioners’ conclusion that they were being policy prescriptive. There is no indicati on that authors were enc ouraged to limit their contributions only to findings that supported a pa rticular policy agenda. Rather, it shows the opposite: they were encouraged to avoid this and to provide po licy relevant information that would be of use to policymakers as they consider the various possible policies. We further note that the petitioners do not identify information in Chapter 9 that is “pol icy prescriptive,” or provide any information on what policies Overpe ck and Jansen were purportedly advancing.

As the IPCC clearly states on its website rega rding its mission statem ent, the organization

reviews and assesses the most r ecent scientific information to produce assessment reports that are “policy relevant and policy neutral, ne ver policy prescriptive” (IPCC, 2010c). The petitioners’ evidence does not show that the IPCC failed to execute th is very important principle. The petitioners’ allegations and implications do not call into question the integrity of these IPCC authors. Finally, we note (as described in Volume 1 of the RTC document) that the official expert and government reviews of the summar y for policymakers for each working group (IPCC, 2007c, 2007d, 2007h) further ensure that the reports are not policy prescriptive.

Comment (2-22) : Peabody Energy argues that the contents of several CRU e-mails from August 2005 16 between Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, and Keith Briffa show that the authors for Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jan sen et al., 2007) were focusing not on the presentation of “neutral science” but rather on “presenting a strong case.”

Response (2-22) : The full content of the e-mails at issue is im portant for understanding what the authors were actually saying.

16 E-mail file 1123268256.txt, (August 5, 2005), page 963, line 29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf; e-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 25 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

49E-mail from Overpeck to Osborn and Briffa on Monday, August 5, 2005 Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can. One issue (other to come in a subsequent email) is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to include the 15th century. I don’t re ad the blogs that re gularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of their being a global warm ev ent around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it is our obligati on to weigh in on issues like th is, so.... can we extend the fig to extend up to 1500AD? Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday. Thanks x10**6 best, peck 17

E-mail from Osborn and Briffa to Overpeck on Monday, August 8, 2005 Hi Peck, there is a period around 1400 AD wh en the proxy records we’ve used in this MWP figure do indicate a warm period - and all records show positive anomalies at the

same time. Thus it couldn’t/shouldn’t be dism issed in the same way as the MWP, as a period of disparate regional behaviour, albe it with more records showing warming than cooling. For 1400, all indicate warming but with smaller magnitude than the 20th century. If the figure were extended to cove r the 15th century, then it would also seem necessary to extend it to the present so that the 1400 period could be compared with the 20th century. I’ve atta ched 3 versions of the figure. 850-1350 as originally sent. 850- 1500 showing warm anomaly in 1400, but canno t tell how warm rela tive to present-day. 850-2000 showing 1400 was not as anomalous as present-day. Take your pick, Peck!

Cheers Tim and Keith 18

E-mail from Overpeck to Osborn and Briffa on Monday, August 8, 2005 Hi Tim - Decisions, decisions... thanks so much for taking the initiative. I think - for the reason you state, we should go for the one that includes the 20th centu ry. We make clear that these are not reconstructed temp, but nor malized anomalies - this keeps us out of some trouble. But, I think the main message is that we’re looking at this issue from every angle. And, we’re letting othe rs see the issue from every an gle. It adds punch. this

means that the MWP box needs to talk a bout the period around 1400 - can you make sure

that’s on Keith’s radar screen. I believe that historians talk about the Medieval Period going to at least 1450, so what the heck... I you can adjust the caption to work, and then send both it and the final fig to Øyvind, me and Eystein that would be good - make sure Keith is ok with it all first, too. Thanks Tim! Best, Peck 19

These e-mails describe a conversa tion between the three scientists in which they are deciding the most appropriate timeframe for a particular se t of graphics depicting normalized temperature anomalies. From our review, the context for th e e-mails in question is that Susan Solomon (of NOAA, and serving as the co-chair of IPCC Work ing Group I) wanted to ensure that the views

17 E-mail file 1123268256.txt, (August 5, 2005), page 963, line 29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

18 E-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 25 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

19 E-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 43 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

50of various climate change scie n tists were addressed in AR 4. She was clearly trying to acknowledge and respond to their concerns, even to the point of reading blogs to better understand their arguments when there was no peer-r eviewed literature articu lating their points. In response, Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, and Ke ith Briffa discussed a number of options for presenting their data on normalized temperature anomalies: first extending the timeline to 1500

A.D. to address the concerns with data ar ound 1450 A.D., then extending the timeline to the present day to provide even more context for th ese early data. They di scussed and ultimately decided to modify the graphic to depict the relationship of the MWP to the 20 th century because that approach would provide important context for understanding current temperature trends, it would be “looking at this issue from every angle. And, we’re letting others see the issue from every angle.” There is no evidence of bias in th is decision. Their presentation of various options for the graphic demonstrates their commitment to considering alte rnative viewpoints and thoroughness in assessing the science. The e-mails speak for themselves and show no inappropriate behavior among these individuals. We disagree with the petitioner that these emails indicate that the scientists were trying to present science that is not neutral or were motivated by a desire to presen t a “strong case” rather than to present the best science. We further note that this graphic went through expert and governmental review and was deemed appropriate for inclusion in the IPCC chapter. The petitioner provided no additional evidence beyond the text of the e-mails to further justify th is allegation.

Thus, these e-mails do nothing more than indicate th at three scientists were trying to present a figure that was comprehensive and offered key contextual information on temperature trends over the past several centuries. There is nothing inappropriate or bias ed about that, and the petitioner has not provided eviden ce suggesting that there was. When examined in their full context, the e-mails do not indicate any wr ongdoing by the three scient ists or support the petitioner’s claims.

Comment (2-23) : In support of their argument that the IPCC is a politicized and biased organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute provided a quote from the Environment Minister of India in which he responds to the incorrect IPCC conclusi on of disappearing glaciers by announcing that India is forming its own independent climate change review panel that will not depend on IPCC reports. The Minister stated th at “There is a fine line betw een climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report” (Indo-Asian News Service, 2010).

Response (2-23) : See Subsection 2.1.3 in this Volume of the RT P document for EPA’s re sponses regarding the validity of the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier projecti on and our conclusion that this error does not undermine the IPCC’s broader findings and the technical support for endangerment.

With respect to the implications of the statemen ts from the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, they clearly show that he disagreed with the specific IPCC Himalayan glacier projection that has been id entified as being an error. His stat ement indicates that he thought that the projection was inappropriately developed base d on inconclusive science. As described in Subsection 2.1.3, the IPCC’s overall assessment of obs erved glacier loss, pr ojected glacier loss,

51and the impacts of glacier loss on w ater resource s in the Himalayas was not compromised by this single faulty projection. Numer ous studies cited by the IPCC document a general decline in Himalayan glacier mass, project substantial futu re declines, and discuss the impacts of these changes on water resources and society, which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the

IPCC.

The evidence provided by the petitioner appears to mischaracterize the Mi nister’s position. The Minister did not make any statements that suppo rt the petitioner’s allegation that the IPCC is biased or politicized. Rather, the Minister expressed his disapp roval of the incorrect glacier projections and stated that Indi a needed to perform its own research related to this issue and other climate change impacts in the country. Sp ecifically, the Minister stated (Indo-Asian News Service, 2010):

I respect the IPCC. At the same time India is a large country... we can’t depend only on IPCC. So we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment... It’s got 125 research institutions from across the country. We will have

international collaborations. It’s a kind of an Indian IPCC and not a rival to the IPCC.

We will do our own assessment.

It is not uncommon for countries to undertake their ow n climate change assessments, and it is misleading for the petitioner to impl y that the Minister’s statements represent a lack of faith in the IPCC. Finally, even if the statements by the Mi nister were to be stretched and interpreted as a comment about the IPCC as a politicized organization, it would be the view of one representative of one country and would not repr esent the official posit ion of the 194 countries that participate in the IPCC. The fact that a nother country chooses to complement the IPCC with another assessment process has no implications fo r the Endangerment Finding. For example, the United States has its own climate change science assessment process that is administered by the USGCRP, and this body has provided excellent and robust information.

Comment (2-24) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Ohio Co al Association argue that the IPCC is “not a scientific organization,” that pe ople in the organization realize it is not, and that the IPCC is a political “organization that reviews and reports scie nce that support its goals. ” In support of their argument, the petitioner provided a quote from The Guardian (a UK newspaper) which in turn quoted Anton Imeson, a former IPCC Working Group II author:

The Nobel prize was for peace not scien ce ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistri bution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change... For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of so mething else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organization.

Response (2-24) : The quote provided by the pe titioner comes from a newspaper article in The Guardian (Adam and Goldenberg, 2010), not a scien tific journal or a comprehensive review of the IPCC. Imeson

52was one of 10 lead authors for Chapter 1 (“Asse ssme nt of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems”) of Working Group II’s contribution to th e AR4 (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). He is presenting an op inion, not a scientific evaluati on, and is one of more than 1,250

authors from 130 countries that wr ote the AR4 with him. It appears that Imeson is concerned about potential policy im plications of the IPCC reports, na mely that governments may use the IPCC reports to “redistribute resources.” He does not provide a specific sc ientific critique, but rather a critique of how governments and th e media characterize the IPCC reports and government policy direction.

The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show that Imeson’s views are shared by other

IPCC authors. To evaluate the merits and cred ibility of Imeson’s statements, one must look at the principles governing the IPCC’s work, and the organization’s established procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication of the assessment reports. In addition, it is also important to assess how these principles a nd procedures were implemented in developing the AR4. EPA has conducted such assessments; they are described in detail in Section III.A of the Findings; Volume 1, Sections 1 and 5, of the RTC document; Appendix A of Volume 1 of the RTC document; and this section of the RTP document. Ultimately, one author’s sentiments about how the IPCC’s key findings ma y be used do not provide us with evidence indicating wrong-doing.

Comment (2-25) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation and the State of Texas argue that since the comment period closed, it has been revealed in the press that th e chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, has multiple potential conflicts of interest. As suppor t for their argument, the petitioners reference a Daily Telegraph (UK newspaper) article published on December 20, 2009, titled “Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr. Rajendra Pachauri” (Booker and North, 2009). The article, along with several ot her newspaper blogs and articles referenced by the petitioners, allege that Pachauri’s connections with vari ous corporations, along w ith consulting services provided to some of these companies, have generate d conflicts of interest and resulted in biased and compromised IPCC reports. The Southeas tern Legal Foundation further states:

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scal e of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, in evitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading “climate official” can al so be personally involved in so many organizations which stand to benef it from the IPCC’s recommendations.

Similarly, the State of Texas argues:

Pachauri’s conflicts of interest weaken the Endangerment Finding. Dr. Pachauri’s conflicts of interest indicate that the IPCC is being led toward a conclusion that climate change is a dire threat to the planet that mu st be reversed; a conclu sion that would enrich Dr. Pachauri and the entities that employ hi m. Consequently, EPA has relied on an assessment that ensures bias and imbalance, a result that EPA claims to want to avoid.

53Response (2-25) : Rajendra Pachauri is the elected, unpaid chairman of the IPCC. The IPCC chairmanship requires expertise and experience in climate change scie nce and policy. The chairperson is elected based on this level of expertise and experience. As a re sult, it is difficult to imagine that a qualified candidate would not have connections and interactions with various academic, science, political, and business communities. Having such connections is not, in and of itself, evidence of conflict of interest in the development of the assessm ent reports. The petitioners insinuate that Pachauri’s professional connections with various companies constitute conflicts of interest, yet they did not provide any evidence that Pachauri’s outside activities generate d conflicts of interest or violated any ethics rules of the World Mete orological Organization or the U.N. Environment Programme. In fact, in the interest of transp arency, Dr. Pachauri has made available his tax returns and details regarding the honorariums and payments from his consulting activities. Further, it appears that the a uditing firm KPMG examined his personal finances and found thatall such payments were made to The Energy and Resources Institute, an Indian nongovernmental organization chaired by Dr. Pachauri (Harvey, 2010).

Most importantly, the petitioners’ argument th at these consulting activities led to biased, imbalanced, and compromised IPCC assessments is completely unsupported by evidence. The petitioners do not provide a single example of a scientific conclusion that was somehow influenced by Dr. Pachauri’s alleged conflicts of interest. The Endangerment Finding must and does rest on strong science, not i nnuendo and speculation of the sort provided by the petitioners.

See Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 in this volume of th e RTP document, which address our view that the IPCC’s procedures are sufficient to ensu re that no one individual—including the IPCC chairman—or group of individuals can exert disproportionate influence in developing any piece of the assessment reports. The IPCC has robust pr ocedures to ensure that the assessment reports are objective, are unbiased, and represent the stat e of the science regarding climate change. Thus, EPA has no reason to conclude, and ther e is no evidence to suggest, that Pachauri’s professional connections influen ced the IPCC reports in any way.

Comment (2-26) : The State of Texas argues that EPA’s RTC doc ument insufficiently addressed comments on the

Administrator’s consideration of studies that disagreed with the a ssessment literature. Specifically, the petitioner stated:

In response to public comments suggesting that the Administrator s hould have included studies that disagreed wi th the Endangerment Finding, EPA notes that “IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP [the U.S. Gl obal Change Research Program/Climate Change Science Program], and NRC [National Research Council] make considerable effort to ensure that their assessment reports reflect a balance of perspectives regard ing the state of the

science.” To support that response, EPA quotes a National Academies report noting that the NRC screens all “provisional committee memb ers . . . in writing a nd in a confidential group discussion about possible c onflicts of interest.... [N]o individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serv e) on a committee of the institu tion used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is re levant to the functions to be performed.” Thus, EPA identifies the Nati onal Academies’ prohibition on conflicts of

interest as a means of ensu ring that the Endangerment Findi ng is balanced and unbiased.

54Response (2-26) : We responded to this issue in Response 1-2 of Volume 1 of the RTC document, and we find that our response to public comments on this issue wa s sufficient, detailed, and responsive. The petitioner misrepresents EPA’s actual response, which we provi de again here to put the petitioner’s allegation in perspective.

Comment (1-2): A number of commenters (3324.1, 3394.1, 3429.1, 3440.1, 3481.1, 3533.1, 3579.1, 3596.1, 3707.1, 3747.1, 3764.1, 3915, 4509, 5716, 8624, 10197, 10948, and 11335) argue

that the Administrator did not reference a ny documents in her decision-making process

that offered alternative views on the scien tific basis for causes of climate change. Commenters recommend that EPA provide a more complete discussion of global warming science by using information outside the assessment literature, including studies that do not support its conclusions and studies submitted to the docket through the public comment period for the Proposed Findings.

Response (1-2): We disagree that the Administrator did not consider alternative views on climate change science and impacts. Such a contention inco rrectly implies that all individual studies reviewed and incorporated into the assessments of U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. Climate Change Sc ience Program (CCSP), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Nationa l Research Council (NRC) support uniform

conclusions on the different elements of greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change science, and that the many thousands of studi es reviewed and reflected in these major assessment works represent a narrow view of G HG and climate change science. In fact, these assessment reports look at the range of the scientific litera ture without “cherrypicking” and it is EPA’s conclusion that by placing primary reliance on the major assessment reports, we have ensured that th e determinations are based on reports that have considered and weighed all views. EPA relied on the major peer-reviewed assessment reports in developing the TSD (U .S. EPA, 2009) precisely to avoid an overreliance on and narrow consideration of indi vidual studies and to ensure that the

Administrator’s decision would be based on a comprehensive assessment of the scientific

literature. EPA has determined that the approach taken provid ed the high level of transparency and consistency outlined by EPA’s Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Regarding the recommendation that EPA provi de a more comprehensive discussion and consideration of global warmi ng science and literature th at is representative of “alternative views,” we have done this th rough our review of comments and literature submitted, the associated revision of the TSD, and the development of the eleven volumes of the Response to Comments document. See Section III.A. of the Findings,

“The Science on Which the Decisions Are Ba sed,” for our response to comments on the use of the assessment literature and previous responses in this section regarding our

treatment of new and additiona l scientific literature provi ded through the public comment

55process. For EPA’s responses to comment s and literature provided on specific climate science issues in the TSD, please refer to the appropriate Response to Comment volumes.

Finally, we note that IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, and NRC make considerable effort to ensure that their assessment reports reflect a ba lance of perspectives regarding the state of the science. We note that the CCSP report Guidelines for Producing CCSP Synthesis and

Assessment Products state that the reports should “identify dispar ate views that have significant scientific or t echnical support” (CCSP, 2004). We refer commenters to Appendix B of this volume for the full listing of these Guidelines . Further, NRC (National Academies, 2006) report de velopment procedures state that:

[C]areful steps are taken to convene [report development] committees that meet the following criteria: An appropriate range of exp ertise for the task. The committee must include experts with the specific expertise and experience n eeded to address the study’s statement of task. One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition of bringing together recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who might not otherwise collaborate. Th ese diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new ways of thinking about a problem.

A balance of perspectives . Having the right expertise is not sufficient for success.

It is also essential to evaluate the overa ll composition of the committee in terms of different experiences and pers pectives. The goal is to ensure that the relevant points of view are, in the National Acad emies’ judgment, reasonably balanced so that the committee can carry out it s charge objectively and credibly.

Screened for conflicts of interest. All provisional committee members are screened in writing and in a confidential group discussi on about possible conflicts of interest. For this purpose, a “conflict of interest” means any financial or other

interest which conflicts with the serv ice of the individual because it could significantly impair the i ndividual’s objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. The term “conflict of interest” means something more than indivi dual bias. There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. Except for those rare situations in which the National Academies determine that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and pr omptly and publicly disclose the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual

has a conflict of interest that is releva nt to the functions to be performed.”

We refer commenters to Appendix C of this volume for more information on NRC report development process. In addition, please se e response to comments below regarding the IPCC report development process and procedures for ensuring a balance of perspectives.

Petitioners reference only a small part of our re sponse in their allegations . Our full response and the record for the Endangerment Finding dem onstrate that the Administrator thoroughly

56considered a range of studies, including those that disagree with the conclusions of the

assessment lite rature.

2.2.3.4 Allegations That IPCC Lead Aut hors Forced Consensus and Suppressed Dissenting Views

Comment (2-27) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Stat e of Texas, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Associati on argue that the CRU e-mails (in particular an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann expres sing their disapproval of two new studies authored by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick) reveal that th e contents of the IPCC reports, in this case Chapter 3 of the AR4 Working Grou p I report (Trenberth et al., 2007), were altered to eliminate any suggestion of non-consensus on key issues. Petitioners clai m that this occurred so as to support a specific policy agenda, and that dissenting views were not given appropriate attention and consideration. The petitioners also argue that a group of authors have actively tried to suppress external cha llenges to consensus.

Response (2-27) : Although the petitioners dr aw broad conclusions of unethical and biased conduct from the e-mail between Phil Jones and Michael Mann, this e- mail does not show that the two IPCC authors acted unethically, or that they took any actions to suppress dissenting views, as alleged by the petitioners. The e-mail at issue was sent on July 8, 2008, and states:

Mike, Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don 't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adri an over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if

we have to redefine what th e peer-review literature is!

Cheers Phil 20

The e-mail shows that Phil Jones strongly disa pproved of the quality of the two studies 21 and that he did not deem them to be of sufficient quality and credibility for inclusion in an IPCC

20 E-mail file 1089318616.txt, (July 8, 2008), Page 720, Line 46 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

21 The paper Jones refers to by “MM” was McKitrick and Michaels (2004). It is not clear what the second paper is, however it was possibly De Laat and Maurellis (2006).

57assessment report. In addition, bo th of the papers were in fact included in the IPCC assessm ent report. The “MM” study (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004) is re ferenced in the IPCC chapter, and assuming that the second study Jones referred to is De Laat and Maurellis (2006), that was included as well. This disproves the allegations of the petitioners that this e-mail is evidence that dissenting views were suppressed or that the IPCC assessment report was biased by such efforts. For example, these two studies are discu ssed in Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007):

McKitrick and Michaels ( 2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanization and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming.

Thus, the events surrounding the citation of the McKitr ick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) studies provide stronger support for the proposition that the IPCC assessed and

cited critical literature than for the petitioners’ view that these events demonstrate that the IPCC

is biased.

The e-mail between Jones and Mann, which is th e only evidence offered by petitioners to support this allegation, simply does not show that either 1) the contents of this chap ter, let alone all of the IPCC assessment reports, were al tered to eliminate a suggestion of nonconsensus, or 2) IPCC authors actively tried to suppre ss external challenges to consen sus. It is not uncommon for scientists to disagree with the work of others, and this e-mail does not provide evidence that Phil Jones or any other IPCC author acted unethically or took actions to s uppress dissenting views, notwithstanding the loose talk in the e-mail.

Our conclusion regarding this e-mail is consistent with the findings of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review investigation, which c oncluded “that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be take n up in heavily contested areas of science.

We take the view that such beha viour does not in genera l threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.” The final report of the investigation also stated that the panel has “not found any direct evidence to support the al legation that members of CRU [in this case Phil Jones] misused their position on IPCC to seek to prevent the pub lication of opposing ideas”(Russell, 2010). On this issue, Brian Hoskins, one of three review editors for Chapter 3, provided statements to the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review that were summarized in the panel’s report as stating (Russell, 2010):

Hoskins confirmed that Las [lead authors], working individually and as small groups, were responsible for the colla tion and primary assessment of material relevant to the topics for which they were responsible. The CLAs [convening lead authors] led the plenary meetings of the writing team prior to production of each of the drafts, led the process of overall collation of the Chapter ma terial and the production of the initial drafts of the First and Second Draft Reports and the Final Draft Report of the Chapter. These drafts were discussed and ag reed during plenary meetings of the whole writing team.

58There were a very large numb er of comments from reviewers, of which a majority were from a relatively small group. The Review Edito rs made sure that they were all given proper consideration, and that th ey were either responded to by a change in the text or by an adequate reason for omission that was recorded in the auth or responses to expert and governmental review comments. Hoskins, as a Review Editor, took part in the Chapter 3 plenary discussions and ensured that conflicting views were addressed.

Led by the two CLAs, Jones and Trenberth, th e writing team for Chapter 3 was assiduous in dealing with comments. Hoskins was very impressed by Jones’ atte ntion to detail, and the rigor of the Chapter 3 process.

The levels of confidence and uncertainty re flected in the drafts were based on the consensus of a group of CLAs and LAs w ho were chosen for their expertise and experience in relevant fields. Irrespective of whether a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is th e responsibility of the whol e team to assess whether a paper‘s conclusions are robust a nd to justify whether its argu ments should carry weight in

the assessment. These decisions for each draf t were taken in plenary sessions of the

whole team. Hoskins said that it is incon ceivable that a paper making significant claims relevant to the work of IPCC and the Chap ter 3 team would not be considered by the team as a whole. The basis for rejecting one of the papers that is a focus of the allegation

is included in IPCC records. Decisions a bout the inclusion of the MM2004 [McKitrick and Michaels] paper would have been taken by the whole team. Jones’ voice would have been one amongst many.

The petitioners do not present scientific eviden ce or argument showing that the IPCC assessment is inaccurate or that it does not appropriately reflect the degree of sc ientific consensus on the issues discussed. The petitioner’s broad conc lusion that this is the case is unsupported by evidence or arguments on the science and assessment literature itself. Finally, we note that the science regarding this issue was raised in th e comment period for the Endangerment Finding and responded to in Response 2-29 of the RTC document. Response 2-29 states:

"In the case of de Laat a nd Maurellis (2006) and an ear lier paper by McKitrick and Michaels (2004), IPCC (Trenbert h et al., 2007) assessed these papers and noted that the locations of greatest socioeconomic developm ent coincided with those most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes, which are not limited to urban areas but rather have large-scale coherence. When this is ta ken into account, IPCC concludes that the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant."

59Comment (2-28) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation argues:

The so-called “science” of global warming has been conducted in an ideologically charged environment, such that any possibili ty of giving due regard to dissenting views was foreclosed at the outset. Thus, the conclusions of organizing bodies, especially IPCC, cannot be said to reflect scientific “c onsensus” in any meaningful sense of that word. Instead, they reflect a political move ment that has commandeered science to the service of its agenda. This is “post-no rmal science”: the long-dreaded arrival of deconstructionism to the natural sciences, according to which scientific quality is determined not by its fidelity to truth, but by it s fidelity to the politic al agenda. A leading climate scientist and contributor to the IPCC, Mike Hulme, has called the IPCC “a classic example” of “post normal science.”

The petitioner further asserts:

Post-normal science was defined by Eva K unseler, in her paper “Towards a new paradigm of Science” as follows: A new con cept of science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s...The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free...The exercise of scholarly activities is define d by the dominance of goal orient ation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors...Scientists’ integrity lies not in

disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders.”(Kunseler, 2007)

Response (2-28) : We first note that this allegation that the IPCC’s work does not represen t objective scientific assessment but is motivated by a political agenda is not new. The petitioner is rehashing an argument previously submitted during public comment on the proposed endangerment finding. We responded to numerous comments received rega rding the scientific in tegrity and objectivity of the IPCC’s processes in developing its assessme nt reports in Volume 1, Section 1, of the RTC

document.

We note that the evidence submitted by the petitioner—consisting of a newspaper op-ed by Mike

Hulme in The Guardian (Hulme, 2007) and the definition of “post-normal science” from a nonpeer-reviewed essay by Eva Kuns eler (Kunseler, 2007)—are not ne w; they were both developed in 2007. Therefore, it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this comment during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. The petitione r has not shown why it would have been impractical to do so.

In addition, the evidence does not support the pe titioner’s allegation th at the science behind climate change has been developed in a biased and “ideologically char ged environment.” The petitioner mischaracterizes Hulme’s discussion of post-normal science and defines what he meant by “post-normal science” with the use of an unrelated paper by Ev a Kunseler that has

60nothing to do with clima te change. This is an ex cerpt of the relevant part of Hulme’s op-ed in

The Guardian newspaper:

That science is an unfolding pr ocess of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many ne w ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions su ch as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moment s when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time. Bu t our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to cha nge as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodologica l rule book that science has painstakingly written over many genera tions of experience.

The other important characterist ic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is ra ther harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this pa rticular mode of scientific ac tivity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertain ties large and decisions ur gent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoke n. It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in th is category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.

Hulme’s discussion of post-normal science presents his opinion about how societal values and policy decisions intersect with the practice of scie nce. His statement does not say or imply that post-normal science means that “a political m ovement [has] commandeered science to the service of its agenda,” nor does he state that cl imate change is a “classic example of post-normal science.” In contrast, Hulme stresses that scie nce is a “process of disc overy” that thrives on challenges that “play by the methodological rule book that science has pain stakingly written over many generations of experience.” This is clearly not a statemen t about science being controlled by politics, nor a statement that politics have pr evented climate change scientists from giving “due regard to dissenting views, ” as the petitioner asserts.

Even if Hulme did claim an overly “ideologic ally charged environment,” this would only represent the opinion of one pe rson among numerous scientific fields comprising an immense number of scientists, institutions, assessment bodies, and governmental organizations. This evidence, presented as a conclusion with no supporting evidence a nd with no scientific explanation of the errors that resulted, would not come close to undermining the credibility and quality of the findings of the assessment literature. As describe d in this volume, and Volume 1 of the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding, the assessment literature upon which EPA based the Endangerment Finding has robust processe s and procedures to ensure that the best

available scientific information is reviewed a nd assessed, with checks and balances included to

61produce high-quality, unbiased reports. We res pond to specific objections raised by petitioners regarding the implementation of the IPCC procedures throughout Section 2.2 of this volume.

We also note that we considered and responded to multiple perspectives and views of climate science in the RTC document for the Endange rment Finding, and considered and responded again to the various pers pectives of the petitioners here in the RTP document and in the Denial. As discussed extensively in our responses, the IPCC and the USGCRP also considered alternative views in their assessment processes. See Volume 1 of the RTC document and Section 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume of the RTP document for a discussion of these report development processes.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s arguments an d materials and do not find that they support the allegations that the IPCC was co-opted by politics and biased against dissenting views. The

balance of the scientific literat ure represented in the assessment reports on climate change, of which the IPCC is one, clearly support s the Administrator’s findings.

Comment (2-29) : The Ohio Coal Association and the Coalition fo r Responsible Regulation argue that the CRU emails “demonstrate that climate scientists felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed-upon narrative of global warming - even when there was not one.” Both petitioners

reference an e-mail from Keith Briffa to Michael Mann which states: “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” Also, as evidence to support their argument, the Coalition for Respons ible Regulation provides a letter to the IPCC from Christopher Landsea, a former IPCC author, in which he states that he could not “in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” (Landsea, 2005).

Response (2-29) : Seeing the entire content of the e-mails cited by the petitioner is important to place the first issue raised by petitioners in context:

E-mail from Mann to Briffa on Sunday, April 29, 2007 Keith, just a quick note to let you know I’ve ha d a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapte r, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) co ntentious areas in the entire report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the[si c] science accurately, but in a way that I

believe I will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. Looking forw ard to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity :) mike 22

E-mail from Briffa to Mann on Sunday, April 29, 2007 Mike your words are a real boos t to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done -

22 E-mail file 1177890796.txt, (April 29, 2007) page 1310, line 44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

62often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the tim e to say these kind words. I tried hard to bala nce the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried th at you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to re port on the issues and uncertainties. Much had to be removed and I was particular ly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM [Statement for Policymakers] regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR [Third A ssessment Report]. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan. I am ha ppy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or s ubstantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment, having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise, again instead of actually doing some useful research! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith 23

These two e-mails were written after the rel ease of the Working Group I report of AR4 (IPCC, 2007e). Michael Mann writes an e-mail showing his approval of the final version of Chapter 6 (“Paleoclimate”) of Working Group I report (Jansen et al., 2007) and to congratulate Briffa on the accomplishment. Keith Briffa responds to show his appreciation for Mann’s e-mail; he explains some of the challenges and difficulties he encountered while finalizing the chapter and getting it through the ultimate st ages of review. As stated in Section 2.2.2 (Background) and Response 2-16 above, Chapter 6 had two conve ning authors and 14 l ead authors from 12 countries, 33 contributing authors from nine countries, and two review editors who oversaw the handling of more than 2,900 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review. It is perfectly understandable and reas onable that Briffa, who was one of the 14 lead authors, would have been frustrated by some of the challenges in examining all of the available scientific literature on topics related to pa leoclimate (whether or not it ag rees with the dominant paradigms and whether or not it has yet stood the test of time compared to other studies that have considered the topic), putting that literature in context through a process of assessment, distilling the information into key messages that capture the state of knowledge at the time of the assessment, addressing all of the expert and gov ernment reviews, and developing key points for the summary for policymakers. Briffa’s e-mail does not support the peti tioner’s allegation that he “felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed -upon narrative of global warming -

even when there was not one.” Th e petitioner is taking Br iffa’s statement that he “tried hard to

balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same” completely out of context and making unsupported allegations. Although he descri bes some frustrations with the challenges of the IPCC’s rigorous and robust report development procedures, Briffa’s e-mail

does not indicate that he was not satisfied with th e final version, that he did not agree with the conclusions, nor that he felt pressured in any way to “present a unified front.”

The e-mails in question also reveal that the pr ocess of scientific asse ssment is personally and professionally challenging because scientists who volunteer their time are taken away from their

23 E-mail file 1177890796.txt, (April 29, 2007) page 1310, line 24 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

63own research and must s ideline their own pe rsonal views of what should and should not be included in the reports. In fact, Michael Mann compliments Keith Briffa’s objectivity and evenhandedness in handling the challenges. Briffa al so clearly expresses frustration with the time spent away from doing new science, which is not the primary job of an IPCC chapter author or of the IPCC in general. The primary role of the IPCC is to assess existing science already published in the literature, i.e., in Briffa’s words, “the needs of the science and the IPCC” are not always the same. In context, it is clear that th e needs of the IPCC in this case are the “formulaic way things had to be done” and the need to do as sessments of existing literature rather than producing “original and substantive” work or “use ful research.” It appears original research

would be what Briffa is referri ng to as the needs of the science. When the e-mails are read in their full context, it is clear th at the authors of these e-mails sought to convey the science accurately and address all the c ontroversies in a fair and even -handed way. Again, petitioners appear to have selectively pi cked excerpts from emails.

We note that the Landsea letter provided by the Co alition for Responsible Re gulation is not new. As stated in the link of the letter provided by the petitioner (Taylor, 2005), Landsea wrote this letter in January 2005. Therefor e, it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this comment during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Th e Coalition for Responsible Regulation has not shown why it would have been impracticable to do so, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EP A might rely on the IPCC asse ssments since the July 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Despite this, we will respond briefly to the peti tioner’s allegations. Christopher Landsea served as a contributing author for the IPCC Sec ond and Third Assessment Reports (IPCC 1995, IPCC 2001), but chose not to participate in AR4. In th e initial planning stages of the AR4, Landsea

wrote this letter to the IPCC e xpressing his disapproval with IP CC procedures. Specifically, Landsea disapproved of the fact that Kevin Tr enberth, an IPCC lead author for the TAR, purportedly used his position to “promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition

to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR [Third Assessment Report].” Landsea went on to state that “As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.

Trenberth’s actions and have reta ined him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR 4.” This letter show s that Landsea disagreed with Trenberth regarding a particular as pect of the attribution of hurricanes to climate change and that Landsea did not approve of Trenberth repr esenting the IPCC when discussing his views about the issue.

This impact of climate change on hurricane activ ity is a very dynamic issue. There are still significant uncertainties in the unde rlying climate science, so it not surprising that two scientists would disagree regarding the attri bution of the 2004 hurricane season to climate change effects. However, the contents of the letter do not “demonstrate that climate scientists felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed-upon narr ative of global warming - even when there was not one,” as alleged by the petitioner. Landsea wa s not taking issue with the content of the IPCC reports, but with how Trenberth di scussed certain issues during th e period between the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. The fact that La ndsea disapproved of how Trenberth represented

64the IPCC in discussi ng a specific scientific issue at a press conference preceding development of the AR4 provides absolutely no support for petiti oners’ claim that the co nclusions reached in AR4 are incorrect or biased, or that they were de veloped in a way that pressured scientists into presenting “a united front.” The petitioners did not provide any evidence to support that

conclusion.

We also note that the discussion in AR4 of uncerta inties associated with the impact of climate change on hurricane activity reflected the ongoing debate and alternative views on the issues. EPA also clearly described the uncertainties rela ted to hurricane activity and climate change in the TSD and again in Volumes 2 and 4 of th e RTC document for the Endangerment Finding. Finally, our response to allegatio ns involving the IPCC’s characteri zation of climate change and

disaster losses can be found in Subsecti on 2.1.4 of this volume of the RTP document.

2.2.4 Responses to Allegations Based on Information That Is Not New

The petitioners submitted four objections concer ning: 1) the collaborations among IPCC authors, 2) the general IPCC peer review process, 3) th e alleged manipulation of dates and deadlines for accepting literature, and 4) the IPCC’s use of gray literature. EPA has reviewed the petitioners’

submissions and finds that it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and that the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and pe titioners could have raised these comments during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e-mails in support of their assertions, EPA’s review has determin ed that this eviden ce does not support their allegations, and that the vast majority of the information submitted by petitioners on these topics was available well before the comment period fo r the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners have not shown why it would have been impracticable fo r them to raise these issues then, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EPA relied, in part, on the IPCC assessments since the July 2008 ANPR. Indeed, some of these same points were already raised, and responded to, in the RTC.

Despite the fact that thes e objections fail to meet the criteria for a petition for reconsideration, we briefly explain why, contrary to petitioners’ alle gation, they fail to call into question the overall integrity or validity of the IPCC AR4. As noted above, very similar comments questioning the appropriateness of IPCC author a nd reviewer roles were submitt ed and responded to during the development of the Findings (see Volume 1 of the RTC document).

2.2.4.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Co llaborations Among IPCC Authors

Comment (2-30) : The State of Texas, Peabody Energy, and the Coa lition for Responsible Regulation contend that

the CRU e-mails show that IPCC authors and re viewers are close associates who frequently collaborate on projects and studies, and claim that such collaborations create conflicts of interest (for example, when one person authors an IPCC chapter and another serves as an official reviewer). Peabody Energy argu es that the Wegman Report, Social Network Analysis of Authorship in Temperature Reconstruction , confirms that IPCC scient ists are closely networked

65with each ot her and dominate their field. The pet itioner references testimony given by Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University) to Congr ess (Wegman, 2006) in arguing that “the paleoclimate field is dominated by interlinked scie ntists who no longer produce research that has the desired degree of independence.”

Based on this report, Peabody Energy provides a detailed example of the small paleoclimate research community and how these scientists fre quently co-author papers together, review each other’s papers, and collaborate in other ways that generate conflicts of interest. Specifically, the petitioner, in referring to Ch apter 9 (“Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”) of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007), provides a series of statistics that were also provided to EPA during the public comment period (these statistics are provided below) and argues that EPA di d not respond to these specific issues in the RTC document:

 Forty of the 53 authors of this chapter co-authored papers with each other.

 More than half of the contributing authors co-authored papers with lead authors or coordinating lead authors.

 The review editor of the chapter contributed to 13 papers cited in the chapter and had coauthored these papers with 10 other authors of Chapter 9.

 Of the published papers in Chapter 9:

o 94 were authored by two or more of that chapter’s authors.

o One cited paper had six chapter authors.

o Five cited papers had five chapter authors.

o 26 papers had three chapter authors, including six pape rs written entirely by chapter authors.

o 50 of the cited papers listed two chapter authors each, a nd 10 of these papers were written entirely by chapter authors.

Response (2-30) : Neither the facts nor the evidence provided suppor t the petitioners’ claim that the collaborations among climate researchers led to co nflicts of interest and bias, or that these collaborations

interfered with th eir ability to be objectiv e and impartial. Some climate science fields (e.g., paleoclimatology) are highly specialized and ar e the focus of only a limited number of researchers. In such fields, sc ientists who have at one point in the past collaborated on work can be called on to review each other’s work. This pr actice is common in a vari ety of scientific areas with a relatively limited number of researchers, not just these specifi c climate science fields. It is actually the most robust practi ce of ensuring scientific credibility, because the reviewing scientists are the true experts who know the material and are most capable of fulfilling the review

role. Petitioners’ conclusions of impropriety or bias are not supported by the mere fact that

authors know each other and have collaborated.

We respond to Peabody Energy’s statistics rega rding Chapter 9 in Subsection 2.2.3.2 of this

volume of the RTP document. Given the limited nu mber of researchers in this particular area, the statistics regarding author and reviewer roles in Chapter 9 of Working Group I’s contribution

66to the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007) are not surp rising and do not indicat e, as alleged by the petitioner, that there were “built-in conflicts of interest that ha d the potential for undermining the reliability of the reports.” Rather, these statistics show that the most qualified and experienced

authors and reviewers were involved in develo ping that particular chapter. EPA carefully reviewed and responded to thes e statistics regarding collabo rations among IPCC authors in

Volume 1 of the RTC document.

Furthermore, all scientific papers have to abide by strict ethical, conflict of interest, and scientific integrity/quality rules. The evidence provided by the petitioners does not show that these rules have been broken, that the peer-review system has been compromised, or that the assessment literature did not consider a range of perspectiv es in summarizing the state of the science. Essentially, the petitioners’ argument can be boile d down to the view that if scientists work together and know each other, something improper is probably happening. This is an unwarranted and unjustified view of profe ssional relationships, based on pure speculation.

Finally, we note that Peabody Energy does not provide any evidence to support its allegation that the past collaborations of these authors and review ers actually led to “less than fully independent and rigorous” assessments of the science. Th e petitioner provided limited and unsubstantiated critiques of the science presented in Chapter 9, which we address in Volume 1 of this RTP document. Peabody Energy also provides no scientif ic argument or analysis indicating that the research produced by theses scientists or the IP CC chapter at issue was in any way biased or less than scientifically rigorous.

2.2.4.2 Allegations Regarding Insufficient P eer Review Processes for the IPCC

Comment (2-31) : Peabody Energy claims that the IPCC’s peer review process is less robust and credible than the processes employed by scientific journals because IPCC lead a nd contributing authors are the ones who decide whether to accept or reject critical reviews. The petitioner argues that the IPCC’s process is flawed because there is no ne utral scientist, who wa s not involved in the writing, to ensure that the re views are judged objectively.

Response (2-31) : First, we note that the petitione r provides no new information to substantiate their allegation, and that Peabody Energy’s argument regarding the rigor of the IPCC’s peer review does not accurately describe the actual review process used by the IPCC. As described above in Subsection 2.2.2 (Background) of this volume, lead and contributing author s are indeed tasked with initially responding to comments; however, independent and objective review editors (i.e., editors not involved in the writing of the chapter) are assigned to each chapter to ensure that each comment is addressed properly and accurately. Furthermore, the contributing authors are not allowed to simply reject cr itical reviews without documen ting their rationale. The IPCC carefully documented all comments received on the first and second order drafts of each chapter of each working group. These comments and res ponses are, and have always been, publically available (IPCC, 2006a for Working Group I and IPCC, 2005 for Working Group II).

67In addition, it would be illogical and inappropriate for the IPCC, as suggested by the petitioner, to allow only unrelated parties to respond to comm en ts on chapters that they did not write. What the petitioner seems to believe would be appr opriate—allowing unrelated people to respond to comments on the draft documents, as opposed to having the authors respond and revise their drafts—makes absolutely no sense and is not co mmon in any scientific discipline because the unrelated parties would not posse ss the experience and context necessary to properly understand and respond to the comments. We therefore di sagree with the petitione r’s argument that the IPCC’s peer review procedures are less rigor ous than the processes employed by scientific journals. Petitioners provide no evidence that the IPCC authors inappropriately influenced the response to comments process or th at review editors failed to perf orm their role in ensuring that all comments were properly addressed. The mere allegations and conclusory claims made by the petitioner are insufficient to s upport the broad conclusion they dr aw. Finally, we note that the petitioner did not provide examples of other peer review processes that th ey deemed to be more

robust and credible than those procedures employed by the IPCC.

2.2.4.3 Allegations That IPCC Authors Manipul ated Deadlines for New Literature

Comment (2-32) : Peabody Energy argues that the IPCC manipulat ed dates and deadlines for receipt of new literature to provide additional evidence in substantiating its conclusions regarding 20 th -century warming. Specifically, the petitioner provides an example of two papers (both by Caspar Ammann and Eugene Wahl) on long-term temper ature reconstructions, one of which was allegedly allowed to be referenced by IPCC authors in the AR4 only because, the petitioners claim, the IPCC manipulated the deadline for receipt of literature.

Response (2-32) : The evidence provided by Peabody Energy does not demonstrate that the IP CC, specifically the lead author of Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007), manipulated the deadline for receipt of new litera ture for the purpose of including the two papers by Ammann and Wahl (Ammann an d Wahl, 2007; Wahl and Ammann, 2007). We note that the IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and petitioners could have raised these objections during the comment period on the proposed Endange rment Finding. Petitioners have not shown why it would have been impractical for them to do so. The only part of their argument that is “new” (i.e., has arisen since the close of th e comment period on June 23, 2009) is an e-mail between Wahl and Ammann, which is a very minor part of their overall interaction. The e-mail only shows that Wahl and Ammann were making final proofing edits in September 2007. The email stated:

Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in th e final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed

references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/A mmann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/struc tural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good re ference structure. I imagine that MM [Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels] will make the biggest issue about the very existence

68of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in W A; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW doe s a good job of contex tualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think hi s confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene 24

As stated by the petitioner, the deadline for receipt of new literature was changed during the development of the Working Group I report. The deadline was originally December 2005 and was changed to July 24, 2006. When the coor dinating lead authors for Working Group I extended the deadline for receipt of new literature, they provided the following justification (IPCC, 2006b):

To ensure clarity and transparency in determ ining how such material might be included in the final Working Group I report, the fo llowing guidelines will be used by Lead Authors in considering such suggestions. In preparing the fina l draft of the IPCC Working Group I report, Lead Authors may in clude scientific papers published in 2006 where, in their judgment, doing so would advance the goal of achieving a balance of scientific views in addressing reviewer comments.

The authors of Chapter 6 followed this guida nce and included the Wahl and Ammann (2007) study. We note that the Wahl a nd Ammann paper was accepted into Climatic Change on March 1, 2006, which means that at that point, the pape r had passed peer review and the editor had agreed with the reviewers regarding its merit fo r publication. Thus, alth ough the citation for the paper is in 2007, the acceptan ce date met the IPCC’s revise d deadline of July 24, 2006, for receipt of new literature that was established by AR4 lead authors. It appears that the same authors’ other paper, Ammann and Wahl (2007), was not accepte d for publicati on in time to meet the extended deadline for receipt of new literature, and we note that it is therefore not referenced in Chapter 6 of the AR4.

The petitioner alleges improprie ty because the IPCC referenced Wahl and Ammann (2007), even though some of the underlying statistical analysis for that study, which was eventually published in Amman and Wahl (2007), had not been accepte d for publication by the extended deadline. There are two flaws with petitione r’s arguments. First, in the event that any of the expert reviewers for Chapter 6 expressed concern rega rding the Wahl and Ammann (2007) paper, they would have had the opportunity to request any supplemental information necessary for reviewing the credibility of the Wahl and Ammann result s. Second, the Ammann and Wahl paper went through peer review and wa s eventually published in Climatic Change in 2007, in the same issue as Wahl and Ammann (2007). The petitioners do not claim or demonstrate that the methods or

results described in the Ammann an d Wahl paper were incorrect or flawed. They simply allege that a decision to change deadlines slightly is “manipulation,” even if no scientific flaw or challenge is raised against the litera ture affected by the date change.

24 E-mail file 1189722851.txt, (Septemb er 12, 2007), page 1357, line 6 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

69Moreover, contrary to the petiti oner’s argument, the evidence provi ded by the petitioner does not

indicate th at the deadline was inappropriately extended to accommodate the inclusion of these papers in AR4. On this issue, the Independe nt Climate Change E-mails Review found that:

Taking into account the evidence of the Review Editor [for Chapter 6, i.e. John Mitchell], IPCC papers [documentation of IPCC responses to comments], the statement from the CLA [Jonathan Overpeck], and the impor tance of the issues raised by M&M2003 [McIntyre and McKitrick], we c onsider it to be reasonable that work that might throw further light on these issues and to ensure that assessments were as up to date as possible

should be included. We do not consider therefore that thes e were exceptional

unwarranted efforts to defend a particular position, but reason able attempts to use up to date information that might resolve an issue. They appear to be consistent with IPCC principles and to reflect a con cern for objectivity (Russell, 2010).

There was a general decision to allow extension of the deadli ne for the entire Working Group, and the chapter authors applied this guidance a nd extended the deadline for scientific studies relevant to that chapter. The fact that it wa s extended does not show it was extended because of these specific papers. In addi tion, petitioners have not shown that the extension altered the results of the report or the appr opriateness of EPA’s rely ing on it. First, inclusion of the peerreviewed study represents one very small part in the deliberate preparation and review of a multivolume assessment containing several thousands of pages of findings and conclusions. Second, Chapter 6 relied upon a number of long-term temp erature reconstructions for its conclusions, including the findings of NRC’s 2006 report (NRC, 2006) on surface temperature reconstructions. The NRC findings were fully c onsistent with the conclusions of the Ammann and Wahl papers. The papers in question pr ovided additional, but not the only, evidence concerning the validity of using long-term pr oxy temperature reconstructions to compare historical and current climates. Indeed, and perhaps most importan tly, the petitioner has provided no evidence showing that the conclu sions of the Ammann and Wahl paper were mistaken or incorrect, or that the conclusions by themselves changed the findings of Chapter 6. Third, we note the statements that John Mitche ll, one of two Chapter 6 review editors for Chapter 6, provided to the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review regarding how in-press

material was handled and how decisions about th e text of successive dr afts were made. He

commented as follows:

I was not aware of the debate about whethe r the Wahl and Ammann paper had or had not

met the deadline for the 2nd order draft fo r chapter 6, until after the event. The concentration on specific deadlines however misses the larger point. It must be recognized that if only published sources were used, the report would be two years old by the time of publication. In a fast-movi ng area such as climate change research, assessments could be significantly behind th e times if important, but as yet unpublished,

new results could not be used. The assessmen ts for policymakers could also therefore be

behind the times...

In earlier assessments, there had been a re latively liberal regime in using unpublished material provided that there was a sound basi s for regarding it as rigorous or reliable, although priority was always given to finding published sources. In AR4 however, the

70regime was tightened significantly, so that such material was only to be used under exceptional circumstances, but the use of unpublished material was not prohibited. Hockey-stick issues were regarded at the tim e as sufficiently important to justify using new data. The dilemma between using only publ ished material and being out of date, or using more recent unpublished material was in creased in AR4 as the latest publication

date was about 12 months earlier than in th e process than in the previous assessment (Russell, 2010).

2.2.4.4 Allegations Regarding the IPCC’s Use of Gray Literature

Comment (2-33) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Peab ody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas argue that the IPCC’s us e of non-peer-reviewed lit erature (e.g., reports they claim are developed by environmental advo cacy groups) in the AR4 calls into question the quality and objectivity of these pieces of literatu re and contradicts EPA’s assertion that the IPCC is based on peer-reviewed science. The petitioners provide examples of gr ay literature sources that were used by the IPCC in AR4.

Response (2-33) : First, we note that the petitioners provided no ne w information in support of their allegations. As stated above, the petitioners are simply reha shing a comment that was submitted and responded to in the development of the Findings. Theref ore, we find that thei r allegations were not impracticable to raise the object ion during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, a nd February 16, 2010. The IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and petitioners could have raised these comments during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Petit ioners have not shown why it would have been impracticable for them to raise these issues then, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EPA relied, in part, on the IPCC assessments si nce the July 2008 ANPR.

The IPCC relied on and referenced a very limite d number of non-peer-reviewed sources in developing AR4. The IPCC’s report development procedures recognized and allowed for the limited use of non-peer-reviewed literature where this was necessary and appropriate. Indeed,

neither the IPCC nor EPA ever stated that the assessment reports relied exclusively on peerreviewed material. For EPA’s responses show ing how the limited use of gray literature

documents did not undermine the IPCC’s scien tific findings and the technical support for endangerment, please see Section 2.1 of this volume, including Responses 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10.

Looking across the thousands of scientific studies reviewed, assessed, and referenced by the IPCC in the AR4, it is clear that the number of non-peer-reviewed documents was dwarfed by the number of peer-reviewed references (estim ated by the IPCC to be approximately 18,000). The IPCC, as clearly described in Volume 1 of the RTC document, has specific procedures to ensure that any non-peer-reviewed materials are sufficiently robust a nd credible in the context in which they were cited. While there are a very few instances in which erroneous conclusions were developed from the gray literature source s (see Section 2.1 of this RTP document for more detail on our responses to these issues), the ove rall process is exceedingly robust. Furthermore,

71the few erro rs in this regard are trivial when viewed against the backdrop of the IPCC’s multivolume assessment containing several thousand pa ges of findings and conclusions. The few errors do not affect the climate change science findings or have any material or meaningful implication for the determination of endangermen t to public health and welfare in the United States. The examples of gray literature provided by the petiti oners were not cited by EPA in describing the key IPCC conclusions that EPA relied on in developing the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009). The examples provided by the petitioners are cited in chapters of the Working Group II and III AR4 reports when describing climate change impacts in other world regions, which was

not a focus of the TSD.

Comment (2-34) : Peabody Energy claims that the IPCC Working Gr oup II “frequently used a citation method that did not candidly reveal an underlying affiliation with an environmental advocacy group.” For example, the petitioner claims that in many inst ances the IPCC report “refe rred only to the name of the author when the work was actually spons ored by an interest group” such as the World Wildlife Fund. Peabody concludes that “It is un clear whether these s ponsored works provide independent, objective, and peer-reviewed science that should be the basis for AR4, or whether they advance the environmental age nda of their sponsor. It is al so unclear whether these sources were independently verified by IPCC authors and contributors.”

Response (2-34) : First, we note that the IPCC’s citation method for the AR4 is not new and that this information

has been known since the assessm ent report was released in 2007 (IPCC, 2007a). Therefore, the petitioner’s arguments were not impracticable to raise during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise betw een June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this commen t during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Peabody Energy has not show n why it would have been impractical to do so. Despite this, we respond below to the merits of their argument.

The petitioner alleges that the IPCC employed a parenthetical cita tion method in the text of the chapters that hid information showing that references were developed by environmental nongovernment organizations. In fact, the IP CC employed a common citation method for the

thousands of studies that are referenced among the more than 3,000 pages in AR4. This format consists of listing the author’s names first for each entry in the references section, and mentioning the publisher and/or organization (e.g ., World Wildlife Fund) to ward the end of the reference. Parenthetical citations, for each referen ce in the text of a chapter, list the author(s)’ name(s) and the year of publication. This ci tation methodology is consistent with many established citation guid elines, including those developed by the Modern Language Association, the American Psychological Associati on, and the University of Chicago.

The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show that the IPCC hid the fact that some of the reports it cited were developed by non-gove rnment organizations li ke the World Wildlife Fund. The petitioner seems to suggest that th e IPCC should have included the names of the nongovernment organizations in the pa renthetical citations for these l iterature sources. However, this practice is contrary to the well-established conventions and st yles that are commonly used in all disciplines of science and literature. Special treatment for these literature sources would be

72inappropriate and unreasonable, a nd the petitioner’s only justificati on for such an approach is the speculation that th is literature might have been created to “adva nce the environmental agenda of their sponsor.” Again, the IPCC included the names of the organizations in the full reference for each report in the references section at the e nd of each chapter. The IPCC did not hide the publisher or sponsoring organization’s name.

For our response to the petitioner’s argument that “It is unclear whether these sponsored works provide independent, objective, a nd peer-reviewed science that s hould be the basis for AR4, or whether they advance the environm ental agenda of their sponsor,” please see Section 2.1 of this volume, including Responses 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10.

Finally, the procedures employed by the IPCC in evaluating sources of gray literature are described in Section 1 and Appe ndix A of Volume 1 of the RTC document. The petitioner has provided no evidence suggesting that the reports developed by environmental non-government organizations were not evaluated by AR4 au thors according to the IPCC’s procedures.

2.2.5 Summary

The evidence provided by the petitioners does no t support their allegations that the IPCC’s peer review and report development processes are designed inappropr iately, or that they were inappropriately implemented in the developmen t of the AR4. Specifically, the evidence provided by the petitioners and all of the inform ation in the record for the Endangerment Finding shows that, contrary to the claims of the petitioners:

 It was proper to not list cert ain scientists as contributi ng authors as they did not contribute significantly to the writing and ed itorial decisions in developing any AR4 chapter, including Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution (Jansen et al., 2007), and therefore did not compromise their object ivity during the peer-review process.

 IPCC authors did not cite their own studies more frequently than what was acceptable

and reasonable.

 IPCC authors were not directed to focus on policy-prescriptive conc lusions, but rather implemented IPCC guidelines by presenting policy-relevant and neutral findings.

 IPCC authors did not alter the content of reports to eliminate suggestions of

nonconsensus.

 Collaborations among IPCC authors and reviewer s prior to the development of AR4 did not compromise objectivity or ge nerate conflicts of interest.

 The IPCC’s peer-review processes are appr opriate and adequate, and were properly implemented.

 IPCC authors did not manipulate deadlin es for receipt of new literature.

73 The IPCC’s very limited use of gray literatu re does not call into que stion the quality and objectivity of the assessm ent reports.

Petitioners do not present scientific eviden ce or argument showing that the Chapters of assessment report at issue are inaccurate or that they do not appropriately reflect the range of scientific evidence and the degree of scientific consensus on the scientific issues discussed. The evidence they present does not s upport the broad asserti on that this is the case. They do not present credible scientific evid ence or arguments on the science itself to support their claims. Therefore, petitioners’ evidence and arguments do not support changing our position, as stated in the Endangerment Finding, that the assessment l iterature, including the IPCC AR4, represents the “best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues before the agency in making an endangerment decision.”

74References

Ada m, D., and S. Goldenberg (2010). How to reform the IPCC

. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010 /feb/10/ipcc-reform. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Agoumi, A. (2003). Vulnerability of North African countries to cl imatic changes. International Institute for Sustainable Development a nd the Climate Change Knowledge Network. Available at: http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Ammann, C., and E. Wahl (2007). The importance of the geophysical cont ext in statistical

evaluations of climate reconstruction procedures. Climatic Change 85: 71–88.

Anyamba, A., and C.J. Tucker (2005). Analys is of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAAAVHRR NDVI data from 1981–2003. Journa l of Arid Environments 63: 596–614.

Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier (2005). Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438:303–309.

Bindoff, N.L., et al. (2007). Ob servations: oceanic climate cha nge and sea leve l. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cont ribution of Working Gr oup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Gi theko, M. Medany, B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda (2007). Africa. In: Climat e change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 433-467.

Booker, C., and R. North (2009). Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. The Daily Telegraph.

CCSP (2009a). Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on th e Mid-Atlantic region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Progr am and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [J.G. Titus (coordinating lead author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (lead authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Washington, DC, USA. 320 pp.

CCSP (2009b). Announcements of IPCC pub lic comment period. Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/ default.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

CCSP (2008). Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate. Regions of focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A report by the U.S. Climate

75Change Science Program and the Subcomm ittee on Global Change Research [T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Washington, DC, USA. 164 pp.

CCSP (2004). Guidelines for producing CCSP sy nthesis and assessment products. Washington, DC. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-guidelines.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2009.

Christensen, J.H. et al. (2007) Regional C limate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom and Ne w York, NY, USA.

Coudrain, A., B. Francou, and Z.W. Kundzewicz (2005). Glacier shrinkage in the Andes and consequences for water resources. Hydrol. Sci. J. 50: 925–932.

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P. Harris, C. Huntingford, C.D. Jones (2004). Amazon dieback under climate-carbon cycle projec tions for the 21st century. Theor. Appl.

Climatol. 78: 137–156. doi:10. 1007/s00704-004-0049-4.

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, C.D. Jones, S. Spall, an d I.J. Totterdell (2000). Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408: 184–

187.

Cruz, R., et al. (2007). Asia. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

De Laat, A.T.J., and A.N. Maurellis (2006). Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface te mperature trends. International Journal of Climatology 26: 897–913.

Dyurgerov, M., and M.F. Meier (2005). Glaci ers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot. Occasional Paper 58, Institute of Ar ctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 118 pp.

Easterling, W., et al. (2007). Food, fibre and forest products. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on C limate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

76Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Fo rbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and M.J. Scott (2007). North Am erica. In: Clim ate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 617-652.

Harvey, F. (2010). Climate chief cleared over payments. Financial Times. Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44a0a92c-3a8e -11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.ht ml. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hasnain, S.I. (2002). Himalayan glaciers meltd own: impacts on South Asian Rivers. FRIEND 2002-Regional Hydrology: Bridgi ng the Gap between Research and Practice [H.A.J. van Lanen and S. Demuth (eds.)]. IAHS Publications, Wa llingford, No. 274, 417-423. Available at: http://scien cepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/pub lication_files/resource-2449- 2006.02.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hegerl, G.C., et al. (2007). Understanding and attributing climate change. In: Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contri bution of Working Gr oup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Hulme, M. (2007). The appliance of sc ience. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci ety/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hulme et al. (2001). African climate ch ange: 1900–2100. Climate Research 17: 145–168.

Hutchinson, C.F., S.M. Herrmann, T. Maukone n, and J. Weber (2005). Introduction: the “greening” of the Sahel. Journa l of Arid Environments 63: 535–537.

Indo-Asian News Service (2010). India to have own panel on c limate change: Jairam Ramesh. Hindustan Times. Available at: http:// www.hindustantimes.com/India-to-have-ownpanel-on-climate-change-Jairam-Ramesh/H 1-Article1-505242.aspx. Accessed July 23,

2010.

IPCC (2010a). Summary description of the IPCC process. (December 2009). IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www.ipccwg1.unibe.ch/statement/WGIsumma ry22122009.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010b). Statement on IPCC principles and procedures. February 2, 2010. Available at : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/pre ss/ipcc-statement-princip les-procedures-02-2010.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

77IPCC (2010c). Organization. Avai lable at: http://www.ipcc.ch/o rganization/organization.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010d). Errata. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publ ications_and_data/ar4 /wg2/en/errata.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010e). IPCC statement on trends in disast er losses. (January 25, 2010). Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentati ons/statement_25_01_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

IPCC (2010f). IPCC Statement on the Melting of Himalayan Glaciers, January 20, 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations /himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf.

IPCC (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report: Climat e Change 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007b). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [core writing team, R.K. Pachauri and A. Re isinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.

IPCC (2007c). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 7–22.

IPCC (2007d). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007e). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contri bution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marq uis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007f). Appendix III. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

78UK, and New York, NY, USA. Availabl e at: http://www.ipcc .ch/pdf/assessm entreport/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-a pp.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2007g). Climate change 2007: impacts, ad aptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Re port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007h). Summary for Policymakers. In: C limate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Ki ngdom and New Yo rk, NY, USA.

IPCC (2006a). Working Group I Fourth Assessmen t Report review comments and responses. Available at: http:/ /hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc /index.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2006b). Guidelines for inclusion of recent scientific literature in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. Available at:http://web.archive.org/web/20070206012931/ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/PublicationDeadlin es_2006-07-01.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2006c). Expert review comments on WGII Fourth Assessment Report: climatechange impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Available at: http://ipccwg2.gov/AR4/SOD_COMMS/Ch01_SOD_Expert.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2005). Deadlines for literatu re cited in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. Available at: http://web.a rchive.org/web/20060430074956http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/PublicationDeadlines.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (1999). Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication of IPCC reports. Adopted at the Fi fteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15– 18 April 1999) and revised, on a provisional ba sis, at the Twentieth Session of the IPCC (Paris, 19–21 February 2003). Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library /ipcc/app-a.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (1995). Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.C. Dupl essy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba, and D. Zhang (2007). Palaeoclimate. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment

79Report of the Intergovernme ntal Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Pete rson (eds.) (2009). Global climat e change impacts in the United States. Cambridge Universi ty Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kingdom of Morocco (2001). Fi rst National Communi cation: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc /mornc1e.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Kretzmann, S. (2010). Africagate is no scandal sa y IPCC authors. Cape West News. (February 15, 2010). Available at: http://westcap enews.com/?p=1306. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Kundzewicz, Z.W., et al. (2007). Freshwater resources and their management. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Kunseler, E. (2007). Towards a new paradigm of science in scientific policy advising. Available at: http://www.nusap.net/downloads/KunselerEssay2007.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Landsea, C. (2005). An open letter to the commun ity from Chris Landsea (r esignation letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC). Available at: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Climat eChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLette rFromIPCC.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Leake, J. (2010a). Africagate: t op British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. Times

Online. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi ronment/article7017907. ece. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Leake (2010b). UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim. Available at: http://www.damtp.cam.a c.uk/user/jono/pub/cc/pccst/Leake_and_North_original_S_Times_a rticle_31_Jan_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Lemke, K., et al. (2007). Observations: change s in snow, ice and frozen ground. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

80McKitrick, R.R., and P.J. Michaels (2004). A test of corrections fo r extraneous signals in gridded surface temp erature data. Clim. Res. 26(2) : 159–173. (Erratum: Clim. Res. 27(3): 265– 268, 2004.)

Ministry of Territory Development and Environm ent (2001). Elaboration de la stratégie et du plan d’action national des changements climatiques (in French). Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/na tc/algnc1.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Muir-Wood, R., S. Miller, and A. Boissonade (2006). The search for trends in a global catalogue of normalized weather-related catastrophe losses. Workshop on climate change and

disaster losses: Understandi ng and attributing trends a nd projections. Final Workshop Report, 25–26. Hohenkammer, Germany. Available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_worksh op/workshop_report.html . Accessed July 23, 2010.

National Academies (2006). Joint Committee Appoi ntment Process. Washington, DC. Available

at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/info rmation.aspx?key=Committee_Appointment. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Nepstad, D. (2010). Senior Scientist Daniel Ne pstad endorses the correctness of the IPCC’s (AR4) statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to rainfall reduction Available at: http://www.whrc.org/resources/essays/pdf/ 2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Nepstad, D., I. Tohver, D. Ray, P. Moutinho, and G. Cardinot (2007). Mort ality of large trees and lianas following experimental drought in an Amazon forest. Ecology (889): 2259–

2269.

Nepstad, D., P. Lefebvre, U. Lopes da Silva, J. Tomasella, P. Schlesinger, L. Solorzano, P. Moutinho, D. Ray, and J. Guerreira Benito (2004). Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis. Global Change Biology

10: 704–717.

Nepstad, D.C., et al. (1999). Large-scale impove rishment of Amazonian forests by logging and

fire. Nature 398: 505–508.

Nepstad, D., C. Reis de Carvalho, E. Davidson, P. Ji pp, P. Lefebvre, G. Hees Negreiros, E. Silva, T. Stone, S. Trumbore, and S. Vieira (1994). The role of d eep roots in the hydrologic and carbon cycles of Amazonian forest s and pastures. Nature 372: 666–669.

81Nicholls, R.J., et al. (2007). Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: C limate 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Wo rking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on C limate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Nicholson, S. (2005). On the questio n of the “recovery” of the rains in the West African Sahel.

Journal of Arid Environments 63: 615–641.

North, R. (2010). And now for Africagate. Available at: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and- now-for-africagate.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NRC (2006). Surface temperature re constructions for the last 2,000 years. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Olsson, L., L. Eklundh, and J. Ardo (2005). A recent greening of the Sahe l—trends, patterns and potential causes. Journal of Arid Environments 63: 556–566.

Parry, M., C. Rosenzweig, and M. Livermore (2005). Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B 360: 2125–2138.

PBL (2010a). Assessing an IPCC assessment: an anal ysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Available at: http://www.pbl.nl/ima ges/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

PBL (2010b). Correction wording floods risks for th e Netherlands in IPCC report. Available at: http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatecha nge/content/correction-wording-floodrisks.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R., Jr. (2010a). What does Piel ke think about this? Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-does-pielke-think-about-this.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R., Jr. (2010b). Do sloppy policy ar guments matter? Part 1. Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/do- sloppy-policy-argument s-matter-part.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R.A., Jr., J. Gratz, C.W. Landsea, D. Collins, M.A. Saunders, and R Musulin (2008). Normalized hurricane damage in the Un ited States: 1900–2005. Natural Hazards Review

9: 29–42.

Pielke, R. Jr. (2006). Disasters, death, and de struction: making sense of recent calamities. Oceanography 19(2): 138–147. June 2006. Works hop at Seventh Annual Roger Revelle

Commemorative Lecture.

82Pile, B. (2010). More lau ndered literature: a guest pos t by Ben Pile. Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/m ore -laundered-literature-guest-post-by.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Ren, J. et al. (2004). Glacier variations and clim ate warming and drying in the central Himalayas. Chin. Sci. Bull. 49(1): 65–69.

Republic of Tunisia (2001). Initial communicatio n of Tunisia under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/tu nnc1esum.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Reuters (2010). U.N. climate panel admits Du tch sea level flaw. (February 13, 2010). Available at: http://www.reuters. com/article/idUSTRE61C1V 420100213. Accessed July 23, 2010.

RMS (2010). RMS FAQ: research on climate change and disaster loss costs and the IPCC. Risk Management Solutions, Inc. http://www. rms.com/Publications/2010_FAQ_IPCC.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Rosenzweig, C., et al. (2007). Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 79–131.

Rowell, A., and P.F. Moore (2000). Global review of forest fires. World Wildlife Federation and

The World Conservation Union. Available a t: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000- 047.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Russell, M. (2010). The independent climate change email review. University of East Anglia. Available at: http://www.cce-review.org/ pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Schneeberger, C., H. Blatter, A. Abe-Ouchi, a nd M. Wild (2003). Modelling changes in the mass balance of glaciers of the northern hemisphere for a transient 2* CO2 scenario. J. Hydrol.

282: 145–163.

Seaquist, J.W., T. Hickler, L. Eklundh, J. Ar dö, and B.W. Heumann (2009). Disentangling the effects of climate and people on Sahel ve getation dynamics. Biogeosciences 6: 469–477.

Available at: http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/ 469/2009/bg-6-469-2009.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Solomina, O., R. Barry, and M. Bodnya (2004). Th e retreat of Tien Shan glaciers (Kyrgyzstan) since the Little Ice Age estimated from aer ial photographs, lichonome tric and historical data. Geografiska Annaler 86A(2): 205–215.

8384 Su, Z., and Shi, Y. (2002). Response of monsoona l temperate glaciers to global warming since the Littel Ice Age. Quat. Int. 97–98, 123–131.

Sunday Times (2010). Retraction on UN climate pa nel shamed by bogus rainforest claim. the

Retraction to this article availabl e to subscribers only. Available at: http://www.damtp.cam.a c.uk/user/jono/pub/cc/pccst/Leake_and_North_original_S_Times_article_31_Jan_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Taylor, J.M. (2005). Climate scientist quits IPCC, blasts politicized “p reconceived agendas.”

Available at: http://www.heartland.org/full/16806/Climate_Sc ientist_Quits_IPCC_Blasts_Politicized_ Preconc%20eived_Agendas.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bo jariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden, and P. Zhai (2007). Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

U.S. EPA (2009). Technical S upport Document for endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (2002). Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency. EPA/260/R-02/008.

Wahl, E., and C. Ammann (2007). Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: ex amination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climatic Change 85: 33–69.

Wegman, E.J. (2006). Testimony of Edward J. Wegman before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006. http://republicans.energycommerce .house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf . Accessed July 23, 2010.