### BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFTHE ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) OF THE CLEAN AIRACT- 74 FED. REG. 66496 (DEC. 15, 2009) Petitioners Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. Industrial Minerals Association- North America GreatNorthem Project Development, L.P. National Cattlemen's BeefAssociation Rosebud Mining Company Massey Energy Company, and Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.


### Submitted by Holland & Hart LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Counsel for Petitioners

Febn;mry 11,2010
- ' i

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................;.......................................... ii I. SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION........................................ ! II. LEGAL STANDARD...........................................................................................................4 Ill.EPA'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS BASED UPON FLAWED DATA....................5 A. The CRU DataAre Not Reliable orReproducible, and So Cannot Form the Basis ofEPA's Finding ofAnthropogenic-InducedWarming OverthePast 100 Years.................................................................................................................................7 1. Data were "fudged."..................................................................................................7 2. False temperature stations were created....................................................................7 3. CRU cherry-picked data to create a warmingbias inthe temperature record.........................................................................................................................8 4. The datahavebeenpartially destroyed, cannotberecreated, and lack scientific integrity....................................................................................................10 B. TheUnreliability ofthe CRU DataRenders Unreliable Any StudyBased onthat Data................................................................................................................................. 11 C. TheBiases Revealedbythe CRU Scientists Likely Infected OtherTemperature Datasets........................................................................................................................... 13 IV.EPA UNLAWFULLY DELEGATED ITS STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO A FOREIGN ENTITY..................................................................................................l6 V. THERE IS NO TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WHEN THE PEERREVIEW PROCESS IS COMPROMISED.........................................................................................23 VI.EPA'S FINDING VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUREACT ANDTHEDATAQUALITYACT....................................................................................26 A. EPA'sFinding Violates the Administrative Procedure Act. ..........................................26 B. EPA'sFinding Violates the Data QualityAct. ...............................................................29 VII. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................32

1

### TABLE OFAUTHORITIES

Cases Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Castle, 665 F.2d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ................................................... 12 Am. Radio Relay League, Inc., v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008)................................. 27,28 AppalachianPower Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ............................................... 12 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. Bd. of Oil and Gas, 792 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986)........................ 22 Conn. Light & Power Co. v. NuclearRegulatory Comm 'n, 673 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 27,28 Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................... 28 Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................ 27 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) .................................................................................. 2 Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473 (D.C. Cir. 1991)..................................................................... 28 Tex. Office of Pub. Uti!. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001) ..................................... 22 Tex. Oil & GasAss 'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 11 US. TelecomAss 'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .................................................. 21, 22 United States v. Nova Scotia FoodProd. Corp., 568 F. 2d 240 (2d Cir. 1977) ........................... 26 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) .......................................................................................................... 1, 5 42

# u.s.c. § 7607(d)(9) ··················································································································· 5 44 U.S.C. § 3516....................................................................................................................... 3, 31 5 U.S.C. § 553 ........................................................................................................................... 3, 27 Other Authorities 58 Fed. Reg. 51736 ....................................................................................................................... 30 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 ......................................................................................................................... 30 67 Fed. Reg. 8454-55.................................................................................................................... 13 67 Fed. Reg. 8460 ......................................................................................................................... 30 74 Fed. Reg. 10671 ....................................................................................................................... 31 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 ......................................................................................................................... 1 74 Fed. Reg. 66504 .....................................:................................................................................... 2 74 Fed. Reg. 66511 ....................................................................................................... 2, 12, 16, 25 Guidelines for Ensuring andMaximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, andIntegrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental ProtectionAgency....................................... 30 Haack, PeerReview andPublication: Lessons for Lawyers, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 789 (2007)
...... 26

iiThe Industrial Minerals Association- North America, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Great Northern Project Development, L.P., Rosebud Mining Company, Massey Energy Company, Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. (collectivelythe Coalition) petition the United States Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA, the Administrator orthe Agency) to reconsider its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) ofthe Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Endangerment Finding or Finding). The grounds for this request arose after the period for public comment expired and are ofcentral relevance to the Endangerment Finding. The Administrator therefore must convene a proceeding for reconsideration and provide the Coalition with "the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). Furthermore, in orderto meet the fundamental requirements ofsound science, legal due process, and valid administrative rulemaking, EPA should stay any further regulatory actions or rulemakings based uponthe Endangerment Findinguntil this reconsideration is completed. 

### I. SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION. The documents released onNovember 19, 2009, from the University ofEast Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England (the Disclosures, attached as Exhibit A), and new studies and public disclosures since publication ofEPA's Finding, demonstrate that EPA must reconsider its Endangerment Finding.

1First, the Disclosures reveal that CRU "fudged" and fabricated temperature data. 1 These unsound data likelyunderlie much ofthe science informing the JPCC assessment reports2 upon which EPAplaces "primary and significant weight" inreaching its Finding. 74 Fed. Reg. at 66511. EPA does not know, and has made no publicly-disclosed effort to determine, whether its Finding relies onunsound data. As a result, the Finding cannot stand. Further, although EPA asserts that these underlying data have been "extensivelypeer reviewed," id. at 66504, the Disclosures call into question the sufficiency and independence ofthis peerreview process, both for the CRU dataset and the other surface-based temperature datasets. In sum, EPA's Endangerment Finding has at its foundation flawed data and suspect science. Second, the Disclosures demonstrate that EPA unlawfully sub-delegated its duties under the Clean Air Act to otherbodies, including foreign entities, withpolicypriorities oftheir own. Thesepolicy goals- namely, to promote the theory ofhuman-caused climate changeinfluenced the finalJPCC assessment reports upon which EPArelies, which means EPA's "scientificjudgment" envisagedbyMassachusetts v. EPA3 is the product ofpolicy considerations outside the scope ofthe Clean Air Act and not reflected inthe record. Scientists involved inpreparing the JPCC assessment reports openly state that "the needs ofthe science and the JPCC
... were not always the same ..." Exhibit A, 1177890796.txt, Apr. 29, 2007. Further disclosures inthe last few weeks even suggest that the IPCC made meritless "predictions" couched as science to serve its policy goals. The IPCC assessment reports are therefore not objective summaries ofscience, but instead reflect the IPCC's policy priorities, none ofwhich
1 CRU is one ofthe acknowledgedprimary data sources usedby climate scientists around the world. See Exhibit B, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uklcru/about/history/. 2 The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is an "intergovernmental" body establishedbythe United Nations EnvironmentProgramme and the World Meteorological Organization. Exhibit C, http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/ organization.htm. 3 See 549 U.S. 497, 534 (2007).
2are part ofthe Clean Air Act. The Disclosures further demonstrate that data managers relied upon bythe IPCC sought to blockpublic disclosure ofthe data and related reports on the grounds that the IPCC is not subject to Freedom ofInformation Actrequests under U.S. law. EPAtherefore failed to adhere to the requirements ofthe Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

### § 553, and the Data Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. 

### § 3516. Because EPA's Endangerment Finding was based in significant part onundisclosed policy and political goals ofnon-U.S. entities, and relied upon data concealed from public disclosure, it must bereconsidered. Third, the Disclosures show that a clique ofclimate scientists, fundamentally reliedupon by EPA, deliberately interfered with the publication ofscientific conclusions contrary to those disseminated in the IPCC assessment reports. These climate scientists, including several at CRU, played critical roles in developing the IPCC assessment reports4 and, therefore, EPA's Endangerment Finding. Other prominent climate scientists have asserted for years that their efforts to publish contrary science oridentify flaws in the IPCC assessment reports have been actively quashed. The Disclosures prove the merit ofthese asse1iions, and undercut EPA's positionthat a scientific "consensus" exists. An artificially-created consensus, based on the suppression ofcontraryviews, is no consensus at all. The problems inherent in EPA's substitution of"peerreview" for independent scientific investigation is underscored bythe IPCC's recent admission that its assessment report regarding the impending disappearance ofHimalayan glaciers was in error. See infra, Section IV. Recently, other IPCC claims regarding Amazonian desiccation, African agriculture, the attribution ofextreme weather-related damages to rising temperatures, and other alleged harms have likewise been shown to lack sound scientific basis. See infra, Section IV. EPAhas thus

4 As CRU makes clear, its "staffhave beenheavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size ofan institution." Exhibit B.
3relied upon scientists who deliberatelyundennined the peer review process and, byrelying upon the IPCC, EPA madejudgments based upon scientific assertions that the IPCC itselfnow admits
were false. Roger Pielke, Sr., a respected climate scientist, has stated, "These emails [the Disclosures] openup the possibility that big scientific questions we've regarded as settled may need another look. [The emails]
... reveal that some ofthese scientists sawthemselves not as neutral investigators but as warriors engaged inbattle with the so-called sceptics." Exhibit D,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climatechange-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html. Because these recent disclosures document fundamental flaws in the science and the processes upon which EPA relies, the objections raised inthis Petition are of"central relevance" to the Endangerment Finding and provide further support for the public comments filed bythe Coalition and otherparties inthis proceeding.5 EPAhas a statutory obligation to convene a reconsideration proceeding to reassess thoroughly the data, studies and analysis upon which its Finding is premised. 

### II. LEGAL STANDARD. Under Section 307(d)(7)(B) ofthe CleanAirAct, the Administrator is obligated to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration where the grounds for the objection either arose after the period for public comment or were otherwise impracticable to raise during thatperiod, and
are ofcentral relevance to the outcome ofthe rule. 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7607(d)(7)(B). An objection that demonstrates the agency's rule is invalid because it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" is ofcentral relevance to the rule. 

### !d.

5 Comments submittedbythe Western Energy Climate Coalition and the Coalition are available atDocketID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0322, -4041, -5158, -11454, -11455, -11536, and -11686.
4§ 7607(d)(9). Reconsideration must "provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the informationbeen available at the time the rule was proposed." 

### Id. § 7607(d)(7)(B). The Disclosures became available on or about November 19, 2009, approximately five months after the close ofthe public comment period.6 EPA's Finding hinges materially upon the reliability, independence, 

### a..11d scientific objectivity ofthe IPCC assessments and related synthesis reports. Butthe Disclosures and subsequent cascade ofrevelations ofdefective science bythe IPCC over recent weeks show that these assessments and related synthesis reports relied in substantial part upon flawed data and were predicated onthe policy and political priorities ofthe IPCC, which are different from those established for EPA under the Clean AirAct. These facts fit squarely withinthemandate for reconsideration contained in Section 307(d)(7)(B). Therefore, EPAmustreconsider its Endangerment Finding, and should suspend any regulatory activitypremised uponthe flawed Endangerment Finding until the reconsideration is complete. 

### III. EPA'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS BASED UPON FLAWED DATA. One ofthe central assertions underlying EPA's Endangerment Findingis that global temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last hundred years andthat "unprecedented" warming has occurred over the last several decades. Inits Technical Support Docmnent (TSD), EPA states that "global mean surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 ± 0.3°F (0.74 ± O.l8°C) when estimatedby a lineartrend overthe last 100 years (1906-2005)." TSD: Section 4(b).

6 Whenthe Disclosures were made public, the Coalition immediately supplemented the record on December4; 2009, with this new information. See Exhibit E, EPA DocketID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-11686. EPA announced fmalization ofthe Endangerment Finding on December 7, 2009, and the Coalition's supplementation was notposted to the docket until December 22, 2009. The Administrator has not demonstrated she considered the Coalition's supplementation in making herFinding, and so the Coalition hereby incorporates byreference the entirety ofits December4, 2009, comments and the accompanying materials into this Petition for Reconsideration.
5 LThis specific temperature finding depends upon a handful oftemperature databases, one ofwhich is maintained by CRU in conjunction with the Hadley Center at the UKMeteorological (Met) Office. This temperature dataset, known as "HadCRUT," served as a primary data source for the IPCC's fmding ofglobal warming. Other CRU datasets directly and indirectly underlie the IPCC findings on related climate indicators, includingthe CRU TS2.1 and CRU TS3.0 dataset ofmonthlymaximu..m a..nd minimu..m temperature, precipitation, rainday counts, vapor pressure, cloudiness and wind speed. 7 In fact, according to CRU, the HadCRUT datasethas provided manyresearchers with "basic data for a whole range ofstudies." Exhibit B. The Disclosures demonstrate that at least some ofthe CRU datasets are fundamentally compromised, whichundermines the "whole range" ofclimate science directly dependent on those datasets.8 The IPCC relied onboththe flawed CRU datasets and the resulting flawed science, and EPA, inturn, basedits Finding on the IPCC.9 As such, the CRU data form the primarybasis for EPA's determination that "unprecedented" warming has occurred in recent decades. See Exhibit BandTSD. These data are also used to verify climate model outcomes. If the data are flawed, so too are the models and studies that relyupon those data. Therefore, because EPAbased its Finding offuture potential hann in largepart on flawed datasets, EPA mustreconsider its Finding.

7 These datasets are citedbythe IPCC as Mitchell and Jones (2005). 8 For a full accounting ofthe history ofClimategate and its implications, see Exhibit F, http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/. 9 CRU is an "acknowledgedprimary data source by climate scientists around the world," and its "staffhave been heavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size ofan institution." Exhibit B. EPA, in turn, relies "mostheavily" on IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in formulating its Endangerment Finding and the accompanying Technical Support Document. TSD: Section l(b). See also TSD: Executive Summary ("The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.").
6A. The CRU DataAre Not Reliable or Reproducible, and So CannotFormthe Basis ofEPA's Finding ofAnthropogenic-InducedWarming Over the Past 100 Years. 1. Data were "fudged." According to CRU's own programming staff, the CRU temperature data were "fudged." Many files contained in the Disclosures evidence CRU's use ofwhat CRU personnel describe as "fudge factors" to "massage" data. For example, the file BRIFFA_SEPT98
_E.PRO reveals the programmer 

### "Appl[ied] a VERYARTIFICIAL correctionfor decline!!," and literally labeled several ofthe adjustments as "fudge factors." 10 Exhibit A. Elsewhere, the programmer asserts in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file that, inthe absence ofdata from the period 1990 through 2003, he made up what to do, stating, "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah- there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
:-)" Exhibit A (emphasis added). EPA cannot support a scientificjudgmentpremised on "very artificial," "fudged," and "made up" data. Because these Disclosures demonstrate that at least some ofthe temperature data managed and maintainedby CRU were "fudged" or "made up," EPA mustreconsider its Finding and demonstrate that the data upon which it relied are valid and not corrupted. 2. False temperature stations were created. Among the most disquieting commentary weaved into the CRUprogramming code are remarks contained inthe HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, which, inpart, documents a CRU programmer's creation offraudulent data when an "update" station matches a "master" station byWMO [World Meteorological Organization] code, butthe data are "unpalatablyinconsistent." Exhibit A. Confronted with these inconsistencies, this programmer appears to have created false

10 See Exhibit G, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ for one commenter's analysis ofthe adjustments contained in this file.

7station codes for the update station data, thus deliberately fabricating non-existent temperaturerecording stations. Theprogrammer states: So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations
... In other words, what CRU usually do. Itwill allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to becomebad, but I really don'tthink people care enoughto fix 'em, and it's the mainreason the project is nearly a year late. · Exhibit A. Hethen admits, "You can't imagine whatthis has cost me- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there [in] such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database ofdubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be)." 

### Id. The programmer goes on to explain, False codes will be obtained bymultiplyingthe legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number isfound with no matches inthe database. THIS IS NOT PERFECTbut as there is no central repository for WMO codes- especiallymade-up ones -we'llhave to chance duplicating one that's present in one ofthe other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO codes between databases

- something I've studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I had to
- will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully. 

### Id. During this work, the CRU programmer worries that "I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections- to lat/lons, to WMO (yes!), and more." 

### Id. This kind ofdatamanipulation, including creation offalse temperature stations, undercuts the credibility ofthe CRU databases and requires EPAto reconsider its Endangennent Finding. 3. CRU cherry-picked data to create a warming bias in the temperature record. Prompted bythe Disclosures, scientists have uncovered other issues related to CRU's dataset, including evidence that CRU likely injected an artificial warming bias into the

8 Ltemperature data. 11 For example, the Moscow-based Institute ofEconomic Analysis (lEA) claims the Met Office's Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with Russian meteorological station data that did not support the anthropogenic global warmingtheory. See Exhibit I, http:/ /en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html; and http://www.cato-atliberty.org/2009/12/17/new-study-hadley-center-and-cru-apparently-cherry-picked-russiasclimate-data/. The lEA states that the HadCRUT dataset employed data from onlytwenty-five percent (25%)ofthe available Russian weather stations, many ofwhich supplied incomplete data but supported the global warming hypothesis. Id. In contrast, data from Russian stations that ' provided complete observations, butthat did not support the global warming hypothesis, were discarded. Failure to include those stations created 0.64°C more warming than ifall the raw data had been employed. Id. EPAhas not even attempted to independently examine documentation ofthe temperature records and supporting computer algorithms, but insteadhas accepted the CRU data and output at face value, based entirely ontheassertion that the data were "peerreviewed." But the Disclosures' revelations that theunderlying data were flawed, "fudged," and cherry-picked in an attempt to support apre-determined outcome wholly undermines EPA's assumption ofvalidity. EPA erred in equating "peerreview" with scientific accuracy and legitimacy, as evidencedby the fact thatthe alleged "peerreview" was performedby a small, self-selected group and failed to insure that data were soundly maintained and generated.

11 The UK Information Commissioners Office has recently determined thatthe University ofEast Anglia's CRU violated the UK's Freedom ofInformation Act byrefusing to comply with requests for data, but aclmowledging that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made untimely. Exhibit H, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece. ("The university at the centre ofthe climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the lawbyrefusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The University ofEastAnglia breached the Freedom oflnformationActbyrefusing to comply withrequests for data concerning claims by its scientists thatman-made emissions were causing global warming.")

9

### 4. The data have been partially destroyed, cannot be recreated, and lack scientific integrity. Indeed, in the HARRY_ READ_ ME.txt file (see Exhibit A), the CRUprogrammer admits the CRU data are without integrity: OH F[---] THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, andjustwhen I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state ofour databases. 

### There is no uniform data integrity, it'sjust a catalogue ofissues that continues to grow as they're found. Exhibit A (emphasis added). And:



### Id. And:



### Id. And:



### Id. And: But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless
... take the above example, the filenames inthe mon and ann

- 

### - directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual'- yet both containmonthly files.

COBARAIRPORT AWS [data from an Australian automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!

Backto the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced byDelaunaytriangulationapparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective- since we'reusing an off-the-shelfproduct that isn't documented sufficiently to say that.
... Was too much effort expended onhomogenisation, that there wasn't enoughtime to write a gridding procedure? Ofcourse, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem ofthetmin and tmax databases notbeing kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?! !"

10The programmer concludes bynoting that "This whole project is SUCH A MESS," that "It's botch after botch after botch," and that "I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history ofthis is so complex that I can't get far Enough into it before my head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history ofmanual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannotjust go back to early versions and run the update prog." 

### !d. Ultimately, this progra...nuner's frustrations were affirmed by the organization for which he worked: CRU disclosed in October 2009 that ithad destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature dataset and kept onlythe so-called "value-added" data. Exhibit J, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/. Thus, at thepresent time, neither EPA nor the public has any way to review the original temperature data to remove (or even identify) the socalled "value" added by the agenda-driven scientists at CRU. This makes verification impossible and flies inthe face ofthe spirit ofthe Administrative Procedure Act and the Data Quality Act. EPAhas no choice butto end its reliance on the scientific analysis and assessment reports
- including the IPCC reports- thatused orrelied in any fashion upon the flawed, inaccurate, unreliable, corrupted and/or subsequently-destroyed CRU data. See Tex. Oil & GasAss 'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 935 (5th Cir. 1998) (a "regulation cannot stand ifit is based on a flawed, inaccurate, ormisapplied study"). 

### B. The Unreliability ofthe CRU Data Renders Unreliable Any Study Based on that Data. Although the Administratorhas asserted that the Endangerment Finding can survive the
now demonstrably-defective CRU data, 12 EPA provides no support for this assertion, nor can it. EPA admits thepublic record consists primarily of"synthesis products" and "assessment
_ reports," which are inturn summaries ofscientific studies performed by others. The CRU data

12 See, e.g., EPAResponse to Comments, Volume 11: 2-3.
11 - 'supported a "whole range ofstudies" in climate science and were heavilyusedbythe IPCC in preparing its assessment reports. See Exhibit Bandfootnote 9, supra. EPA, in tum, admits it relied heavily upon the IPCC reports. See 74 Fed. Reg. 66511 and footnote 9, supra. Further, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and other agencies and scientists have likewise relied upon the IPCC reports and CRU data. Since these otherbodies evidently employed the flawed data, 13 itis not apparent what (ifany) valid, untainted science remains in EPA's administrative record. Indeed, byfailing to make any effort to address the tainted and questionable science, or to distinguish it from other sources, EPA has failed to demonstrate that it relied on valid data or science to support its Endange1ment Finding. Itis incumbent upon EPA to assemble an administrative record that is free offlawed or questionable data. Without such a record, the public and the courts are deprived ofany ability to
assess whether there is a validbasis for EPA's Finding. EPA cannot simply assert, without explanation, that there are "multiple lines ofevidence" that are free oftaint. See EPA Response to Comments, Volume 11: 3. EPA has not publicly identified and separated any flawed CRU data from the hundreds ofstudies that refer to or are based onthat flawed data. Norhas EPA determined the extent to which the CRU data influenced or underlaythe IPCC assessments. EPA therefore acts arbitrarily whenitmerely asserts, without documentation or explanation, that its Finding is independent ofany defective data. As the D.C. Circuithas stated, "The EPA claims itmade areasonable choice-and itmayberight-but simplyto state such a claim does not make it so." Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2001). See also Am. PetroleumInst. v. Castle, 665 F.2d 1176; 1186-87 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("Ofcourse the

13 See, e.g., U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram 2009, n.44, 45, 49-53 (citing IPCC for assertions that human activities have causedrecent global warming).

12Administrator's conclusions must be supported by the record, and [ s]hemay not engage in sheer guesswork."). C. The Biases Revealed by the CRU Scientists Likely Infected Other Temperature Datasets. Although the Disclosures specifically document data corruption and management problems with the CRU dataset, the conduct documented in the Disclosures- as well as other evidence that has come to light in the past two months

- calls into question all ofthe temperature data cited byEPA. The climate scientists EPA relies upon often "peerreviewed" each other's work and collaborated to limit the persons reviewing their work to those who shared theirpolicy agenda. These are not the objective, arms-lengthrelationships that give the peerreview process scientific integrity. See infra, Section V. Under Office ofManagement & Budget (OMB) guidelines applicable to scientific support for agency decisions, this manipulation ofthepeerreview process destroys any presumption that "peerreview'' alone is sufficient to insure all ofthe databases are independent and free ofbias, deliberate or inadvertent. See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity oflnformation Disseminatedby Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452, 8454-55 (Feb. 22, 2002) (noting that the presumption ofobjectivity normally accorded to peer-reviewed information is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing in a particular instance). Given the lack ofobjectivity demonstrated by some ofthe key scientists upon whom EPA relies, EPA must now independentlyreconsider all ofthe temperature records. The scientists at CRU responsible for the tainted data appear to have had over the past decade a close collaborative relationship with the climate scientists responsible for managing the other surface-based temperature databases through NASA and NOAA. James Hansen (and NASA colleagues) who maintained the NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

13 i I Idataset, along with Thomas Karl (and NOAA colleagues) who maintained the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) dataset, sent, received, or were copiedupon scores ofthe emails released in connection with the Disclosures. At a minimum, Phil Jones, Hansen, Karl and others at these agencies shared an unusually close relationship that extended to sharing portions oftheir respective datasets and discussing disparities among them. See, e.g., Exhibit A, 92608742l.txt, May7, 1999; and 939154709.txt, Oct. 5, 1999. The extent to which these very close relationships affected the manner inwhich the separate databases and homogenizing algorithms
were created is not fully disclosed inthe current record. However, the cliquish nature and lack ofobjectivity oftllis so-called peerreview process eliminates EPA's ability to assume the databases are valid, merelybecause theyhave been "peerreviewed." There are numerous and recently-released studies documenting significant warming biases inthetemperature databases that, in light ofthe Disclosures, reveal the fruit ofthis manipulatedprocess. 14 For example, adjustments made bythe Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) 15 in Darwin, Australia, transformed a temperature trend falling at 0.7°C per centuryto one that was warming 1.2°C per century. Exhibit W, http:/ /wattsupwiththat.com/2009I12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/. In Darwin, raw data
was averaged from three temperature monitoring stations; data from one stationhadremained untouched, while data from the other two stations hadbeen adjusted not only to change the degree ofthe trend, but also the direction ofthe trend itself. Id. To do so, GHCN imported a

14 See, e.g., Exhibit K, Balling and Idso 2002; Exhibit L, Christy et al. 2006; Exhibit M, Christy and Norris 2009; ExhibitN, D'Aleo 2009; Exhibit 0, D'Aleo 2010; Exhibit P, Davey and Pielke 2005; Exhibit Q, Davey et al. 2006; Exhibit R, Hale et al. 2006; ExhibitS, Pielke et al. 2007a; Exhibit T, Pielke et al. 2007b; Exhibit U, Soonet al. 2004; and Exhibit V, Watts 2009. 15 The Global Historical ClimatologyNetwork database contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands ofland stations worldwide, and it is used and referenced byNOAA's NCDC andNASA's GISS. Itis also been employed in several international climate assessments, including**~e** IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

14stair-stepped upward "adjustment" ofapproximately 0.5°C per decade from 1940 to 1980, even though urban heat island effects in the recent past indicate the need for downward adjustments to properly account for such effects. Jd. Similar "adjustments" are also evident in one striking comparison ofraw temperature data with homogenized temperature data "adjusted" by the New Zealand national weather service, the National Institttte ofWater & Atmospheric Research (NIW A). E){..bibit X, Treadgold 2009. There, a widely-known graphprepared in the 1980s by Dr. Jim Salinger, formerly ofthe CRU, has long served as thebasis for establishing global warming inNew Zealand. That graph, attached as Exhibit X to this Petition, shows a steadywanning trend ofrising temperatures in New Zealand from early in the twentieth century throughthe year 2000. Recently, however, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition tested Dr. Salinger's analysis ofthe official New Zealand NIW A temperature database. It employed the same original temperature data to prepare its own graph, which shows no warming whatsoever. Id. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition concluded that all ofthe "adjustments" made by Salinger and the NIWA served to show inaccurate increases inwarming. Jd. Faultytemperature monitoringhas also created a warming bias inthetemperature records. A dramatic reduction inthe number ofmonitoring stations reflected inthe current databases used by IPCC and EPA, combined with the relocation ofinstruments, likely contributed to false warming trends over the entire globe, as reportedbytheMoscow Institute of Economic Analysis and others. See Exhibit I. See also Exhibit Y, D'Aleo & Watts (2010). These marked discontinuities inthe temperature monitoring stations likely skew global temperature records and create erroneous warming trends inthe data.

15All ofthese studies take onincreased importance in light ofthe Disclosures, which not only call into question the key CRU dataset, but also serve warning that some other climate scientists have fallen afoul ofthe temptation to "fudge" data. EPA has no basis to rule out whether other datasets have been "fudged," whether purposefully or not, because EPAhas not independently evaluated the data. EPA's assertion that global temperatures have risen markedly in recent years as a result ofanthropogenic GHG emissions has been further undermined by an important studyjust released byNOAA, which attributes much ofthe alleged warming in prior decades to water vapor. Exhibit Z, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128 watervapor.html. In fact, according to Susan Solomon, lead author ofthe study, the findings indicate that human emissions may have a considerably smallerrole in climate change thanpreviouslythought. Exhibit AA, http://www.ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasa-water-vapor-largely-responsibleglobal-warming-012910. Again, this recent NOAA study, which corroborates the views ofmany scientists that water vapor is the primary GHG that influences warming, has not yet been considered byEPA. Byitself, the significant new studyrequires the reconsideration mandated by Section 307(d)(7)(B). IV. EPAUNLAWFULLY DELEGATED ITS STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO A FOREIGN ENTITY. EPA avowedly places "primary and significant weight" on the IPCC assessment reports. 74 Fed. Reg. at 66511. EPA defends this approach on the grounds thatthese assessment reports include "consensus conclusions" based onthe "body ofscientific literature" and "undergo a rigorous and exacting standard ofpeerreview." 

### !d. In fact, however, the Disclosures demonstrate that the IPCC assessments were driven bypolicypriorities outside the Clean Air

16Act. 16 Recent media reports have also documented numerous breakdowns inthe IPCC process in favor ofadvancing policy objectives masquerading as science. 17 EPAhas therefore unlawfully sub-delegated authority to a foreign agency with different policypriorities and relied uponinvalid scientific assessments resulting from IPCC's agenda. The Disclosures demonstrate that climate scientists felt pressured to present a unified front- and an agreed-upon narrative ofglobal warming- even when there was not one. See Exhibit CC, Carter 2007; Exhibit DD, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html. While working on an IPCC assessment report, Keith Briffa, a scientist at CRU, wrote to Michael Mann,
a professor at Pennsylvania State University: "I tried hard to balance the needs ofthe science and the IPCC, which were not always the same." Exhibit A, 1177890796.txt, Apr. 29, 2007 (emphasis added). Kevin Trenberth, Head ofthe Climate Analysis Section ofNational Center for Atmospheric Research inBoulder, Colorado, and lead author ofa chapter inthe IPCC AR4 Working Group I report, stated in an October 2009, email that "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Exhibit A, 1255530325.txt, Oct. 2009. Briffa also spoke ofpressure to produce a cleanpicture of"apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more inthe proxy data," yet Briffa admitted that, "I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago," which is contraryto the IPCC

16 As noted in footnote 2, the IPCC is comprised ofmembers from the UnitedNations and World Meteorological Organization, including nations from a broad spectrum ofeconomic, energy, development and social circumstances and goals. The United States is a member ofthe UN and IPCC, but the needs and goals ofthe U.S. (and the judgmentand expertise ofEPA) obviously are not necessarily the same as those ofthe IPCC. 17 EPA cites to the IPCC'sProcedures forPreparation, Revievv, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval, andPublication of theIPCCReports (1999) tojustify the use ofassessment reports and show that IPCC has a formal drafting and review process. (EPA Response to Comments, Volume 1: 9). EPArelied onthe stated policies andprocedures for the IPCC reportprocess, yet EPAhas thus far failed to publicly evaluate whether the procedures andprocesses were, infact, adhered to. See Exhibit BB, Feb. 4, 2010 Barton Letter to Administrator Jackson. The Disclosures demonstrate that these procedures likely were not adhered to, and EPAmust re-evaluate its heavyreliance onthe assessment reports based onthis newknowledge. ·
17position. Exhibit A, 0938018124.txt, Sep. 22, 1999. As Christopher Landsea, a fonner IPCC scientist and a leading expert onhurricanes and cyclones, stated, he could not "in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as bothbeingmotivatedbypreconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." Exhibit EE, http://www.heartland.org/full/16806/Climate Scientist Quits IPCC Blasts Politicized Preconc eived Agendas.html. In order to present a narrative of"unprecedented" global warming, IPCC authors colluded to exclude various scientific studies from the IPCC reports. Phil Jones, who has temporarilyresigned from his position as CRU Director and who was a co-author with Trenberth
on IPCC Working Group I chapters, planned to exclude studies casting doubt onthe relationship between human activity and global warming. Jones wrote, "I can't see either ofthese papers being in the next IPCC report," vowing that "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow- even if
we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Exhibit A, 1089318616.txt, Jul. 8, 2004. Thepressure to conform to a perceived "global warming" consensus also led to manipulation ofdata to produce the outcome IPCC authors wanted. Emails and computer code contained inthe Disclosures reveal that scientists at CRU manipulated their temperature databases and their findings with undisclosed, unverified and arbitrary adjustments. See supra, Section III(A) and (B). Emails contained in the Disclosures confirm certain scientists' efforts to "artificially adjust" data through active collaboration to "reduce the positive slope," "reducethe
ocean blip," and "containthe medieval warm period." .See, e.g., Exhibit A, 843161829.txt, Sept. 19, 1996 (Gary Funkhouser, ofthe University ofArizona, writing to Briffa, "Ireally wish I could bemore positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out ofmy sleeve trying to milk something out ofthat"); Exhibit A, 1163715685.txt, Nov. 16, 2006 (Briffa noting

18 Li1that "the PCl time series inthe Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years," and that "this adjustment was arbitrary and the linkbetween Bristleconepine growth and C02 is, at the very least, arguable."); Exhibit A, 1254108338.txt, Sept. 27, 2009 (Tom Wigley, ofthe University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, (UCAR) strategizing "to partly explain the 1940s warming blip," and noting that "ifwe could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this wouldbe significant for the global mean- butwe'd still have to explain the landblip
... Itwouldbe good to remove at leastpart ofthe 1940sblip, but we are still left with 'whythe blip'."); Exhibit A, 1059664704.txt, July, 31,2003 (Mann sending calibration residuals to Tim Osborn, at CRU, and acknowledging that some are "pretty red," and asking Osborn notto "pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of'dirty laundry' one doesn't want to fall into the hands ofthose who might potentiallytry to distort things
..."); Exhibit A, 0939154709.txt, Oct. 15, 1999 (Osborn discussing how data are truncated to stop an apparent coolingtrend that appears inthe results); Exhibit A, 1054736277.txt, June 4, 2003 (Mannnoting "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP' [Medieval Warm Period]"). Perhaps the most egregious example ofmanipulation to get the "correct" political result
comes from a November 1999 email in which Phil Jones, CRU's former director, boasted, "I've justcompleted Mike's Nature trick ofadding inthe real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Exhibit A, 942777975.txt, Nov. 16, 1999. 18 Jones's email evidences CRU staffs effort to deliberately

18 Jones's communication refers to a noticeable temperature divergence, beginning in the 1960s, betweenproxy temperature data derived from tree rings and data from instrumental temperature measurements. To deal with this divergence, Jones describes his technique ofdisguising the temperature declines in the proxy databy simply replacing such data after 1961 with instrumental temperature measurements, which trended upward overtime. In short, rather than objectivelyreport that the tree ring data showed a temperature decline, Jones replaced the tree ring data with instrumental records showing a temperature increase, an obvious effort to manipulate data to fit a preconceived warming conclusion.
19manipulate data to yield desired results that best fit CRU's and IPCC's predetermined conclusions. See, e.g., Exhibit FF, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/lllcrus source code climategate r.html. More recent revelations similarlyillustrate efforts by IPCC scientists to advance the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Most notably, new reports show that the IPCC's prediction ofa "very high" probability Himalayan glaciers will disappearby 2035 was not grounded in sciencebutwas instead placed in the assessment reports for political purposes. Exhibit GG,http://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-dataverified.html (The coordinating lead author ofthe report's chapter on Asia, Dr. Murari Lal, said he was aware the statement did not rest onpeer-reviewed scientific research, but "thought that if
we canhighlightit, itwill impactpolicy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.") 19 Recently, new revelations oferrors, omissions orlack ofvalid scientific support for assertions made in the IPCC reports have come to light on an almost-daily basis. See Exhibit II, http:/!eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html (IPCC reports alleging climate-caused harm to the Amazon forests not supported by science); Exhibit JJ,http://www.telegraph.co.uklearth/enviromnent/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-changepanel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html (IPCCreports alleging mountain ice reductions inthe Andes, Alps, and Africa were based onunsubstantiated and nonscientific material, such as anecdotal evidence from mountain guides or articles in climbing magazines); Exhibit KK, http://www.timesonline.co.uldtol/news/enviromnent/article7017907.ece

19 Inthe wake ofthe news that IPCC reports contained erroneous claims concerning Himalayan glaciers, India has now formed a new climate change body to publish its own fmdings regarding the country's climate, expressing concern overperceived shortcomings ofthe IPCC's processes for compiling its reports. See Exhibit HH, http:llvvww.telegraph.co.ukl earth/ environment/climatechange/7157 5

**90/India~fOrms-new-climate-change-bodv.**html.
20(Prof. Chris Field, current lead author ofiPCC's climate impactteam, states he "cannot find support" for claim in IPCC 2007 Synthesis Reportthat global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop productionbyup to 50% by2020); Exhibit LL, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article?000063.ece?token=null&offset=O&p age=I (IPCC's attribution ofan increase in the number and severity ofextreme weather-related events to global wa..rming misconstrued underlyingreport's findings, which found insufficient evidence ofa statistical relationship between temperature increase and damage); Exhibit MM,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCCclimate-change-report.html (recent disclosures ofother IPCC errors, including flaws in a diagram used to illustrate energypotential from wave power, and erroneous reports thathalfthe Netherlands was below sea level). What these recent revelations demonstrate is that, throughout the IPCC process which EPA so heavily relies upon, mistakes were made, questionable evidence relied upon, data manipulated, and a systematic bias pursued of"proving" anthropogenic warming, with headlong disregard for any contrary data or scientific viewpoints. At a minimum, these recent disclosures should give EPA considerablepause, and cry out for the kind ofthorough-going reconsideration neededto ensure EPA's ultimate determination is based on sound science and valid data. The end result is the policy-driven agenda ofa foreign entity substituting for the "scientificjudgment"required ofEPA under the Clean Air Act. Courts haveheld that subdelegations ofdecision-making authority to outsideparties is improper for exactly this reason. "[W]hen an agency delegates power to outside parties, lines ofaccountability may blur, undennining animportant democratic check on government decision-making." 

### US. Telecom Ass 'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Further, sub-delegation to outside entities

21"increases the riskthat these parties will not share the agency's 'national vision and perspective,' and thus maypursue goals inconsistent with those ofthe agency and the underlying statutory scheme
... aggravat[ing] the risk ofpolicy drift inherent in anyprincipal-agent relationship." Id. at 565-66 (internal citations omitted). Sub-delegationby an agency is assumed to be improper absent an affirmative showing of Congressional authorization. Id. at 565. No such legitimate authorization exists here. The IPCC is not authorized by Congress to make policy for the Americanpublic. The actual bases for EPA's Finding that unprecedented and dangerous global warming exists is not the Administrator's independent "scientificjudgment," butrather the result ofan international "intergovernmental" process and agenda. EPA has not made its own independent and objective analysis and assessment ofall ofthe pertinent data and science. Instead, EPAhas merely "rubber-stamped" the IPCC's conclusions with only "vague [and] inadequate assertions offinal reviewing authority." Jd. at 568. This renders EPA's reliance onthe IPCC an unlawful sub-delegation ofits regulatory responsibilities to an outside, non-U.S. entity, and provides a separate legal basis as to whyEPA mustreconsiderthe Endangerment Finding. See Tex. Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC, 265 F.3d 313, 328 (5th Cir. 2001) (ruling that an agency abdicates its role as a rational decisionmaker ifit does not exercise its ownjudgment and instead cedes near-total deference to a private party's conclusions);Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. Bd. of Oil and Gas, 792 F.2d 782, 795 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that without meaningful independent review ofan outside body's actions, an agencyunlawfully delegates its authority). At thisjuncture, the onlyproper course for EPA is to reconsider its Endangennent Finding in its entirety, and to refrain from taking any further regulatory action based onthat Finding until the reconsiderationprocess is completed.

22

### V. THERE IS NO TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WHEN THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS COMPROMISED. As discussed above, EPAjustifies its heavy reliance onthe "science" ofothers, rather than onits own scientific determinations, solely onthe basis that such "science" was "peer reviewed." Yet the Disclosures reveal an orchestrated effort by a clique ofclimate scientists to subvert the peerreview process and stifle scientific debate. The Disclosures show that certain IPCC and CRU scientists interfered with the editorial boards ofscientificjournals, boycotted variousjournals, suppressed publication ofdissenting viewpoints, and collaborated together to gain favorable peerreview. For example, lead IPCC authors and key climate scientists including Wigley, Jones, Mann and Mike Hulme (ofthe University ofEast Anglia) worked together to
remove the editor ofGeophysicalResearch Letters (GRL) and ClimateResearch for publishing,
or consideringpublication of, articles that contradicted their views on climate change. Tom Wigley wrote, "Ifyouthinkthat Saiers [GRL editor] is inthe greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if
we can find documentary evidence ofthis, we could go through official AGU [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted." Exhibit A, 1106322460.txt, Jan. 20, 2005. Later, following the resignation ofMr. Saiers, Mann, author ofthe now-discredited hockey stick graph, boasted, "The GRL leak mayhave beenplugged up noww/ new editorial leadership
...." Exhibit A, 1132094873.txt, Nov. 15, 2005. Likewise, in an April 24, 2003 email to Timothy Carter, copying Mike Hulme and Phil Jones, Wigley considered thebest wayto remove editor Hans von Storch from Climate Research and discussed Hulme's idea to get the editorial board to resign. Exhibit A, 1051190249.txt, Apr. 24, 2003. Dr. von Storch subsequently resigned. Exhibit A, 1060002347.txt, Aug. 

### 4, 2003. The Disclosures also show that Phil Jones, former CRU director, and Ben Santer, ofthe Lawrence Livennore National Laboratoryin California, went overthe head ofthe editor of Weather, with

23Jones threatening the Royal Meteorological Society ChiefExecutive that hewould no longer submit information to Royal Meteorological Societyjournals ifthe Weather editor refused to "back down." Exhibit A, 1237496573.txt, Mar. 19, 2009. Mann20 has also encouraged his colleagues to change their opinion ofthe widely-read, well-respectedjournal Climate Research, and considered proposing thatthey "no longer submit to, or cite papers in, thisjournal." Exhibit A, 1047388489.txt, Mar. 11, 2003. These scientists did not act as a group ofindependent, objective scientists who welcomed public airing ofthe complex science issues and embraced legitimate criticism. Instead, these scientists tried mightily to allow only one perspective onthe global warming debate to be published and legitimized. EPAthenrelied heavily onthis manufactured "scientific consensus" to disregard any contrary views or contrary evidence to its Finding ofanthropogenic "endangerment.'' This utterbreakdown ofthe scientificmethod is epitomizedbyWigley's expression ofconcern that individuals with genuine scientific credentials, but who disagree with the IPCC position, "could
... ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can getthrough the peer review process
..." and that "Howto do deal with this is unclear." Exhibit A, 1 051202354.txt, Apr. 23, 2003. Tllis biased approach to science not only suppresses legitimate debate; it endorses findings thatmayprove to be scientifically erroneous orunsubstantiated. For instance, serious scrutiny cannotbe expected from hand-picked, wholly-supportive reviewers, yet Jones encouraged a like-minded author to submit the names offive scientists as recommendedpeer reviewers because they "knowthe sorts ofthings to say." Exhibit A, 1249503274.txt, Aug. 5,

20 Mann, who features prominently in many ofthe emails discussing removal of journal editors and suppression of alternate viewpoints, has received nearly $2.4 million in stimulus moneyto studyissues related to global warming through grants awarded to the National Science Foundation. To date, no effort has beenmade to suspend or reconsider**Ma~'s** stimulus grants. Exhibit NN, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527 48704541004575010931344004278.html#printMode.

24 . 

### /**~**2009. Conversely, prominent scientists have stated for years that their efforts to publish contrary sciencehavebeen stifled and that theyhave seentheir grant money dryup and researchpositions become unavailable to them. These same scientists claim theyhavebeenpubliclyridiculed and their reputations made to suffer ifthey take issue with the supposed "consensus" onthe science. 

### See Exhibit CC; Exhibit DD; Exhibit 

### 00, http://opinionjoumal.com/extra/?id=110008220; and Ex}libit PP, Carter 2008. Indeed, Roger Pielk:e, a climate scientist who has, onoccasion, publicly disagreed with IPCC conclusions, has described how differing points ofview were suppressed, observing: Therehas been, however, inmyview an unfortunate change over time where reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection ofsubsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the different perspectives on a science issue. Exhibit A, 1101133749.txt, Nov. 19, 2004. This systemic suppression ofdiffering viewpoints, in turn, has dissuaded prominent scientists from seekingpublication inpeer-reviewedjournals. As noted by one IPCC author, "evenhere [in the UK] they [climate change skeptics] don't seem to be bothering withjournals at all recently." Exhibit A, 1256765544.txt, Oct. 28,2009. Yet EPA, like the IPCC, has ignored or downplayed contradictory science or science published in alternative formats, where publication was available to scientists who challenged the IPCC's global warming agenda. In ligl1t ofthe documented flaws in the peerreview process used bythe IPCC and some ofits associated scientists, EPA cannot continue to assert that a true "scientific consensus"21

21 Although the Endangerment Finding acknowledges that the IPCC and other synthesis assessment reports convey merely "consensus conclusions," 74 Fed. Reg. at 66511, EPA nevertheless places primary and significant weight on them. Yet, as discussed more fully in Comments submitted by the Western Energy Climate Coalition and the Coalition at DocketID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0322 (p. 2-5), a purported "consensus" is irrelevantto science and should be immaterial to EPA's Finding. EPA's duty in making its Finding is not to tally votes- that is not science -butto make a sound scientificjudgment within the parameters ofthe Clean AirAct.
25exists regarding alleged "unprecedented" global warming simply because the science was "peer reviewed." As the IPCC process amply illustrates, '"scientific consensus' canbe created through purchased research and the manipulation ofa 'scientific' literature
...." Haack, PeerReview and Publication: Lessons forLaYVJlers, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 789, 818 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Giventhe Disclosures, EPA cannot rely on synthesis assessments simplybecause they
were "peerreviewed," any more than it can discredit contra..lJ' science merely because it was not. Consistent withits responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, EPAmust make its own independent assessment and scientificjudgment. Here, such an assessment andjudgment has not yet occurred. The major deficiencies identified inthis "peerreview" process demands that EPA reconsider its Finding. 

### VI. EPA'S FINDING VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE DATA QUALITY ACT. A. EPA's FindingViolates the Administrative Procedure Act. The Disclosures demonstrate that much ofthe technical data and studies on which EPA based the Endangerment Finding were, quite purposefully, hidden from public disclosure by IPCC scientists. EPA has made no attempt to disclose these studies or data, in direct contravention ofthe Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. § 553. TheAPA requires agency decisions to be supported by a publicrecord that is sufficiently transparent to permit thepublic to understand the basis ofthe decision and to allow courts to review the decision for compliance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 553. See also United States v. Nova Scotia FoodProd. Corp., 568 F. 2d 240, 251 (2d Cir. 1977) (agreeingthat "unless the scientific datarelied uponbythe agency are spread upon the public records, criticism ofthe methodology used or the meaning to be inferred from the data is rendered impossible"). Under Section 553 of the APA, "[i]n orderto allow for useful criticism, itis especially important for the agency to

26identify and make available technical studies and data that it has employed in reaching the decisions to propose particular rules." Am. Radio RelayLeague, Inc., v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm 'n, 673 F.2d 525, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (emphasis added). See also Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). Far from disclosing the underlying tecb..!lical studies or data, EPArelies instead on summaries and assessments from third parties. These summaries and assessments rely on scientific studies, which in tumrelyon undisclosed data and data adjustments. Indeed, EPA states that it relies heavily on the IPCC synthesis reports, yet the IPCC admits it "does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data orparameters." Exhibit C. Thus, EPA is at least two steps removed from most ofthe "technical studies and data" upon which its Finding is based. Byrelying on such summaries and assessments, rather than actual technical studies and/orunderlying data, EPAhas failed to comply with the law. EPA does not even purport to havereviewed the data or data adjustments relied onby IPCC or other agencies. Likewise, neitherthe raw norhomogenized data are posted to the Endangerment rulemaking docket orhavebeenmade available for public review byEPA. In short, EPA's Finding concludes that anthropogenic global warming endangers public health, yet it has failed to provide the public withthe technical studies or data on which itplaces primary and significant weight to support those assertions. The D.C. Circuithas criticized this type of"hide the ball" tactic, where the public cannot easilyreview orverify the sources relied upon by EPA, stating, "To allow an agency to play hunt the peanut with technical information, hiding or disguising the information that it employs, is to condone a practice inwhich the agencytreats what shouldbe a genuine interchange as mere

27bureaucratic sport." Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 484 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Conn. Light & Power Co., 673 F.2d at 530). See alsoAm. Radio RelayLeague, Inc., 524 F.3d at 237. Nowthat the Disclosures have beenmade public, the "accuracy ofimportant material in the record is in question," including both underlying data and peerreviewed studies, which should be made available for public comment. Idaho Farm BureauFed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1403 (9th Cir. 1995). It is now incu..mbent on EPA to disclose this information; allow fullyinformed commentbythepublic; and then, taking those informed comments into account, reevaluate its Finding. 

### In fact, however, itis doubtful EPA can disclose the technical studies and data upon which it so heavily relies, not onlybecause Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU deliberately withheld data from both EPA's and the public's review, but also because some ofthatraw data has nowbeen destroyed. Jones often discussed how CRU and IPCC could evade requests for information and freedom ofinformation (FOI) iaws, instructing coUeagues to delete emaiis and correspondence regarding the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, Exhibit A, 1212063122.txt, May 29, 2008, and promising that "[i]fthey ever hear there is a Freedom oflnformationAct now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Exhibit A, 1107454306.txt, February 2, 2005. Jones also observed that CRU data and code are coveredby agreements with outsiders, and that CRU would be "hiding behind them." Exhibit A, 1106338806.txt, January .21, 2005. Further, at least one scientist engagedby EPA to review and approve EPA's TSD was
aware that underlying data were being concealed under the pretext ofstanding behind the IPCC's foreign status. Gavin Schmidt,22 a manager ofNASA's temperature database who participated in

22 Gavin Schmidt is involved in the management ofthe NASAtemperatures records. NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies have dragged their feet for nearly three years inresponding to a Competitive Enterprise 28the review ofEPA's TSD, was aware that data supporting EPA's conclusions were being hidden from the Agency. In2008, once FOI requests were received, Jones wrote to Schmidt that, "The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI- the skeptics have beentold this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possiblyhold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligationto pass it on." Exhibit A, 1219239172.txt, Aug. 20, 2008 (emphasis added). See also Exhibit A, 121034122l.txt, May 9, 2008; and 1228330629.txt, Dec. 3, 2008. EPA's Findings therefore rely
on the input ofat least one scientist who knew data werebeing withheld from review byEPA and the public. As noted above in footnote 11, the British government has recently found this conduct illegal under UK law. See Exhibit H. This helps illustrate whythe IPCC processes relied upon byEPA are wholly inadequate under comparable American disclosure laws as well. While IPCC maynot be subject to U.S. Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) requests, EPA is, and it cannot evade its statutory obligations under FOIA and the APA by offshoring its workto an entity unaccountable under United States law. B. EPA's Finding Violates the Data Quality Act. The Disclosures also demonstrate that EPA's Finding does not comply with federal transparency and data quality laws. To help ensure transparency, Congresspassed the Data Quality Act (Section 515(a) ofthe Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001) (44 U.S.C. 

### § 3516), which ensures that scientific risk assessments made by

Institute ("CEI") Freedom oflnformation Act request for documents and code relating to NASA's data adjustments. Ultimately, CEI filed notices ofintentionto file suit in the United States District Court for the District ofColumbia to compel NASA's production ofthis information. See Exhibit QQ, http:l/wwv>'.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-ciimate-dispute.
29agencies follow established guidelines designed to promote transparency, scientific discipline and accountability. Guidelines promulgated bythe Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) under the Data Quality Actprovide guidance to federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity ofinformation, including statistical information. See 67 Fed. Reg. at 8452. These OMB guidelines require that an agency's dissemination of"ip.Jluential" scientific and statistical information include a high degree oftransparency about data and methods to facilitate the reproducibility ofthatinformation. To that end, agencies are required to ensure sufficient transparency about data and methods- including those analyses ofdata that combine infonnation from multiple studies

- suchthat an independent reanalysis couldbeundertakenby a qualified member ofthepublic. See 67 Fed. Reg. at 8460. See also Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735, 51736 (Sept. 30, 1993) (providing that regulatory decisions "shall" be based on "the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation"). Although original and supporting data are not subject to a reproducibility requirementby OMB, particularlywhen data cannot bereproduced given confidentiality constraints, agencies must apply "especially rigorous robustness checks" to analytic results, and they must document what checks were undertaken in order to ensure compliance with the OMB guidelines' transparency standards. Id. Inresponse to these OMB guidelines, EPA published its Guidelines for EnsuringandMaximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, andIntegrity of Information Disseminated by the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, in which EPA affirmed that for disseminated influential data, EPA would ensure reproducibility according to commonly accepted scientific or statistical standards, pledging a high degree oftransparency for such

30informationregarding the source ofthe data used, the various assumptions employed, the analytic methods applied, and the statistical procedures employed. In addition, President Obama issued a Memorandum dated March 9, 2009 on scientific integrity, whichprovides inpertinent part that: Ifscientific and technological informationis developed and used bythe Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extentpermittedbylaw, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use ofscientific and technological information in policymaking. Memorandum for the Heads ofExecutive Departments and Agencies, 74 Fed. Reg. 10671 (Mar. 9, 2009) (emphasis added). EPAhas violated the requirements ofthe Data QualityAct, Executive Order No. 12,866, the OMB guidelines, the March 9, 2009 Presidential Memorandum, and its own guidelines by failing to provide full disclosure and transparency inthe data itrelied upon. Instead, EPA attempts to avoid these requirements by sub-delegating the risk assessment regarding greenhouse gases to other entities, inparticularto the IPCC. As discussed in detail above, the Disclosures reveal howEPA's unlawful sub-delegation to the IPCC undermined compliancewith the transparency and data qualityrequirements ofAmerican law. Indeed, EPA could notpossibly have complied withthese requirements, given that the IPCC authors deleted information and hid behind foreign laws to avoid disclosure ofkey data supposedly supporting "influential" science detenninations. Because EPA was never provided (and thus neverreviewed) key data from CRU, the Data Quality Actrequirements governing datatransparency and reproducibility were not applied to CRU data and data-normalizing algorithms. 23 Further, these requirements were not applied to

23 Independent efforts to reproduce temperature records and IPCC historical temperature findings have been unsuccessful. One study, noting that the rawtemperature records inthe United States Historical Climatology
31the workperformedbythe IPCC, upon whose assessment reports the Administrator relies so heavily. The Disclosures show that this failure to meet data quality standards was significant, because the scientists involved not only sought to delete information and hide behind the IPCC's foreign status, but did so to protect "fudged" data used to support the IPCC assessments. Under these circumstances, EPA must reconsider its Finding, because EPA's recordhere fails the tra.."'lsparency and accou.."'ltability requirements ofthe law and thereby violates the Data Quality Act. 

### VII. CONCLUSION. The Coalitionrequests EPA convene a proceeding for reconsideration to (1) thoroughly reevaluate EPA's heavy reliance upon the IPCC reports whichhave been called into fundamental question; (2) prepare a complete and objectiverecord for the reconsiderationproceeding which contains all the relevant scientific data, studies, and viewpoints and is cleansed ofquestionable or one-sided data; (3) obtain and fully disclose all computerprograms, data and algorithms used to "homogenize" all temperature records upon which EPArelies; (4) subject the temperature records and programs to an independentreview by qualified and objective scientists and statisticians; (5) determine whether ornot there is any statisticallyvalid demonstration of unprecedented global warming over the last century; and (6) stay any further regulatory actions

Network (USHCN) are adjusted substantially to account for a variety ofpotential contaminants, concluded the effects ofsuch adjustments "produce a significantly morepositive, and likely spurious, trend in the USHCN data." Exhibit K. Another study could not successfully replicate the long-termNorthern Hemispheric surface thermometer temperature trends ofiPCC's Third Assessment Report. ExhibitU. The study concluded that the inability to replicate the trend was likely a result of"datapadding" used to smooth and filter data, which was not incorporated in the reports ofthe data trends, and it recommended avoidance of"subjective data-padding procedures." Id.
32orrulemakings which are based upon the Endangerment Findinguntil these fundamental requirements ofsound science, legal due process, and valid administrative rulemaking are completed. Dated February 11, 2010.
Paul D. Phillips Cori S. Peterson Cathryn R. Milkey HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202-3979 Patrick R. Day HOLLAND & HART LLP 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 Cheyenne, WY 82001 John A. Bryson Emily C. Schilling HOLLAND & HART LLP 975 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 James A. Holtkamp HOLLAND & HART LLP 60 E. SouthTemple, Suite 2000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Eric Groten VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 ViaFortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX78746-7568 Attorneys for Petitioners

33

### INDEX OFEXHIBITS SUBMITTED

A. Climatic Research Unit, University ofEast Anglia, FOI2009 Disclosures (first available Nov. 19, 2009) (Disclosures). [A CD ofthe Disclosures submitted in lieu ofa hard copy.] B. Climatic Research Unit, University ofEast Anglia, "History ofthe Climatic Research Unit;" available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history (printed February 9, 2010). C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Organization;" available at http:/ /www.ipcc.ch/organizationlorganization.htm (printed February 10, 201 0). D. D. Rose, "SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server," Mail Online, December 13, 2009; available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIALINVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-sendthem.html (printed February 9, 2010). E. Addendum and Supplementation ofRecord to Coalition Comments on EPA's Proposed Finding ofEndangerment From Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases to Public Health and Welfare, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886-18910 (April24, 2009): Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0171-11686, or, in the Alternative, Petition to Re-Open this Proceeding in Light of**t-~evvly-Released** 

### Information (December 4, 2009). F. "Climategate: 30 Years in the Making;" available at http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate-30-year-timeline (printed February 10, 201 0). G. "Climategate: The Smoking Code," December 4, 2009; available at http:l/wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code (printed February 10, 2010). H. B. Webster and J. Leake, "Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data," TimesOnLine, January 28, 2010; available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece (printed February 9,2010). I. RIA Novosti, "Russia affected by Climategate," December 16, 2009; available at http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html (printed February 9, 2010); and A. Illarionov, "New Study: Hadley Center and CRU Apparently Cherry-picked Russia's Climate Data," December 17, 2009; available at http://www.cato-atliberty.org/2009

### I12/17/new-study-hadley-center-and-cru-apparently-cherrv-pickedrussias-climate-data (printed February 10, 2010). J. Climatic Research Unit, "CRU Data Availability;" available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/datalavailability (printed February 9, 2010). L ' 'K. R.C. Balling Jr. and C.D. Idso, "Analysis ofadjustments to the United States Historical ClimatologyNetwork (USHCN) temperature database," Geophysical Research Letters 29 (2002). L. J.R. Christy, W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K.P. Gallo, "Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence ofHumanInduced Climate Change?"Journal ofClimate 19 (2006): 548-563. M. J.R. Christy, W.B. Norris and R.T. McNider, "Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes,"Journal of Climate 22 (2009): 3342-3356. N. J. D'Aleo, "United States & Global Data Integrity Issues," Science and Public Policy Institute, January 27, 2009. 0. J. D'Aleo, "Central Park- Temperatures Still a Mystery," January 12, 2010; available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CENTRAL PARK.pdfand http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/central park temperatures still a mysterv/ (printed February 10, 2010). P. C.A. Davey and R.A. Pielke Sr., "Microclimate Exposures ofSurface-Based Weather Stations, Implications For The Assessment ofLong-Term Temperature Trends," Bulletin of the AmericanMeteorological Society (2005): 497-504. 

### Q. C.A. Davey, R.A. Pielke Sr. and K.P. Gallo, "Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the Eastern United States, Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure ofheat content," Global andPlanetary Change 54 (2006): 19-32. R. R.C. Hale, K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen and T.R. Loveland, "Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals stations," Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006). S. R.A. Pielke Sr., C.A. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall,J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider and P. Blanken, "Unresolved issues with the assessment ofmultidecadal global land surface temperature trends," Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (2007). T. R. Pielke Sr., J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, 0. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai, S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li and S. Raman, "Documentation ofUncertainties and Biases Associated with Surface Temperature Measurement Sites for Climate Change Assessment," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (2007): 913-928. U. W. Soon, D. Legates and S. Baliunas, "Estimation and representation oflong term (>40 year) trends ofNorthern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperture: A note ofcaution," Geophysical Research Letters 31 (2004).V. A. Watts, "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009). W. W. Eschenbach, "The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero," December 8, 2009; available at http:/lwattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero (printed February 10, 2010). X. R. Treadgold, ed., The NewZealand Climate Science Coalition, "Are we feeling warmer yet?" November 25, 2009; available at http:/ /www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009I11/are-we-feeling-warmer-yet/ (printed December 3, 2009). Y. J. D'Aleo and A. Watts, "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" Science & Public Policy Institute, SPPI Original Paper, January 29, 2010. Z. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Stratospheric Water Vapor is a global Warming Wild Card," January 28, 2010; available at http:/ /www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories20 10/20100128 watervapor.html. (printed February 9, 2010). AA. N. Kharrl, "NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming," Eco Factory, January 29, 2010; available at http://www.ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasawater-vapor-largely-responsible-global-warming-012910 (printed February 9, 201 0). BB. J. Barton and G. Walden, "Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson," February 4, 2010. CC. R.M. Carter, "The Myth ofDangerous Human-Caused Climate Change," The AusiMM New Leaders' Conference, May 3, 2007: 61-74; http://icecap.us/imagines/uploads/200705-03AusiMMcorrected.pdf. DD. P.J. Michaels, "Howto Manufacture a Climate Consensus," The Wall StreetJournal, December 17, 2009; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html (printed February 10, 201 0). EE. C. Landsea, "An Open Letter to the Community form Christopher Landsea" (2005); available at http://www.heartland.org/full/16806/Climate Scientist Quits IPCC Blasts Politicized Preconceived Agendas.html (printed February 5, 2010). FF. M. Sheppard, "CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered," American Thinker, November 25, 2009; available at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009111/crus source code climategate r.html. GG. D. Rose, "Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified," Mail Online, January 24, 201 0; available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientistssays-knew-data-verified.html (printed February 10, 201 0).HH.

II.

JJ.

KK.

LL.

MM.

NN.



### 00.

PP. QQ. D. Nelson, "India forms new climate change body," Telegraph,co.uk, February 4, 2010; available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ environment/climatechange/7157590/Indiaforms-new-climate-change-body.html (printed February 10, 2010). R. Alleyne, "Amazon rainforest at risk ofecological 'catastrophe,"' EU Referendum, March 12, 2009; available at http:l/eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-foramazongate.html (printed February 10, 2010). R. Gray and R. Lefort, "UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article," Telegraph.co.uk, January 20, 2010; available at http:/ /v.1ww.telegraph.co.uk/earth/envirmiment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climatechange-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html (printed February 10, 2010). J. Leake, "Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility," TimesOnLine, February 7, 2010; available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece (printed February 10, 2010). J. Leake, "UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters," TimesOnLine, January 24, 2010; available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece?token=null&offs et=O&page=1 (printed February 10, 2010).
l) r::....ay anrl "Q Tear-h ""J.T"'"' "'"M"f\rs in TPI'I' f'lirnat"' {'hang"' r"'nort "TPlPgr!'lnh c() lllc

**~'\... '-J~**  **.1.~\.1.** .L..Io .J...J ""' ' !""'""'""'"".I..&. V.I. .L ..L..L '-''-' """'.L.L.L.L.L """'
........... .a. ""' '"".t'
......, .a. ............... .a.-.t' • ....,._..,.._, February 6, 2010; available athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-inIPCC-climate-change-report.html (printed February 10, 2010). "Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus," The Wall Street Journal, Review & Outlook, January 20, 2010; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html# printMode (printed February 10, 2010). R. Lindzen, "Climate ofFear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence," The Wall StreetJournal, Opinion Journal Archives, April 12, 2006; available at http://opinionjoumal.com/extral?id=110008220. R. Carter, "Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?" EconomicAnalysis andPolicy 38 (2008). S. Dinan, "Global warming controversyreaches NASA climate data" The Washington Times, December 3, 2009; available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute.