BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR 

CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) OF 

THE CLEAN AIR ACT- 74 FED. REG. 66496 (DEC. 15, 2009) 

Petitioners 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. 

Industrial Minerals Association- North America 

Great N orthem Project Development, L.P. 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

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 Data Are Not Reliable or Reproducible, and So Cannot Form the 

Basis ofEPA's Finding of Anthropogenic-Induced Warming Over the Past 100 

Years ................................................................................................................................. 7 

1. Data were "fudged." .................................................................................................. 7 

2. False temperature stations were created .................................................................... 7 

3. CRU cherry-picked data to create a warming bias in the temperature 

record ......................................................................................................................... 8 

4. The data have been partially destroyed, cannot be recreated, and lack 

scientific integrity .................................................................................................... 1 0 

B. The Unreliability of the CRU Data Renders Unreliable Any Study Based on that 

Data ................................................................................................................................. 11 

C. The Biases Revealed by the CRU Scientists Likely Infected Other Temperature 

Datasets ........................................................................................................................... 13 

IV. EPA UNLAWFULLY DELEGATED ITS STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES 

TO A FOREIGN ENTITY .................................................................................................. l6 

V. THERE IS NO TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WHEN THE PEER REVIEW 

PROCESS IS COMPROMISED ......................................................................................... 23 

VI. EPA'S FINDING VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 

ANDTHEDATAQUALITY ACT .................................................................................... 26 

A. EPA's Finding Violates the Administrative Procedure Act. .......................................... 26 

B. EPA's Finding Violates the Data Quality Act. ............................................................... 29 

VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 32 

1 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

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 

Appalachian Power 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. Nuclear Regulatory 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 & Gas Ass 'n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 11 

US. Telecom Ass 'n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) .................................................. 21, 22 

United States v. Nova Scotia Food Prod. 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 and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency ....................................... 30 

Haack, Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 789 (2007) ...... 26 

ii 
The 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. (collectively the Coalition) petition the United States Enviromnental Protection Agency 

(EPA, the Administrator or the Agency) to reconsider its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 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 of central 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 

order to meet the fundamental requirements of sound science, legal due process, and valid 

administrative rulemaking, EPA should stay any further regulatory actions or rulemakings based 

upon the Endangerment Finding until this reconsideration is completed. 

I. SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION. 

The documents released on November 19, 2009, from the University of East Anglia's 

Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England (the Disclosures, attached as Exhibit A), and new 

studies and public disclosures since publication of EPA's Finding, demonstrate that EPA must 

reconsider its Endangerment Finding. 

1 
First, the Disclosures reveal that CRU "fudged" and fabricated temperature data. 1 These 

unsound data likely underlie much of the science informing the JPCC assessment reports2 upon 

which EPA places "primary and significant weight" in reaching its Finding. 74 Fed. Reg. at 

66511. EPA does not know, and has made no publicly-disclosed effort to determine, whether its 

Finding relies on unsound data. As a result, the Finding cannot stand. Further, although EPA 

asserts that these underlying data have been "extensively peer reviewed," id. at 66504, the 

Disclosures call into question the sufficiency and independence of this peer review 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 other bodies, including foreign entities, with policy priorities of their own. 

These policy goals- namely, to promote the theory of human-caused climate changeinfluenced the finalJPCC assessment reports upon which EPA relies, which means EPA's 

"scientific judgment" envisaged by Massachusetts v. EPA3 is the product of policy 

considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act and not reflected in the record. Scientists 

involved in preparing the JPCC assessment reports openly state that "the needs of the science and 

the JPCC ... were not always the same ... " Exhibit A, 1177890796.txt, Apr. 29, 2007. Further 

disclosures in the 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 of science, but instead reflect the IPCC' s policy priorities, none of which 

1 CRU is one of the acknowledged primary data sources used by 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 established by the United 

Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. Exhibit C, 

http://www .ipcc.ch/organization/ organization.htm. 

3 See 549 U.S. 497, 534 (2007). 

2 
are part of the Clean Air Act. The Disclosures further demonstrate that data managers relied 

upon by the IPCC sought to block public disclosure of the data and related reports on the 

grounds that the IPCC is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests under U.S. law. 

EPA therefore 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 on undisclosed policy and political goals of non-U.S. entities, and relied 

upon data concealed from public disclosure, it must be reconsidered. 

Third, the Disclosures show that a clique of climate scientists, fundamentally relied upon 

by EPA, deliberately interfered with the publication of scientific 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 or identify flaws in the IPCC assessment reports have been 

actively quashed. The Disclosures prove the merit of these asse1iions, and undercut EPA's 

position that a scientific "consensus" exists. An artificially-created consensus, based on the 

suppression of contrary views, is no consensus at all. 

The problems inherent in EPA's substitution of "peer review" for independent scientific 

investigation is underscored by the IPCC's recent admission that its assessment report regarding 

the impending disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was in error. See infra, Section IV. 

Recently, other IPCC claims regarding Amazonian desiccation, African agriculture, the 

attribution of extreme weather-related damages to rising temperatures, and other alleged harms 

have likewise been shown to lack sound scientific basis. See infra, Section IV. EPA has thus 

4 As CRU makes clear, its "staff have been heavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than 

anywhere else relative to the size of an institution." Exhibit B. 

3 
relied upon scientists who deliberately undennined the peer review process and, by relying upon 

the IPCC, EPA made judgments based upon scientific assertions that the IPCC itself now admits 

were false. 

Roger Pielke, Sr., a respected climate scientist, has stated, "These emails [the 

Disclosures] open up the possibility that big scientific questions we've regarded as settled may 

need another look. [The emails] ... reveal that some of these scientists saw themselves not as 

neutral investigators but as warriors engaged in battle with the so-called sceptics." Exhibit D, 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climatechange-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-D ID-send-them.html. 

Because these recent disclosures document fundamental flaws in the science and the 

processes upon which EPA relies, the objections raised in this Petition are of "central relevance" 

to the Endangerment Finding and provide further support for the public comments filed by the 

Coalition and other parties in this proceeding. 5 EPA has 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) of the Clean Air Act, 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 that period, and 

are of central 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 of central relevance to the rule. !d. 

5 Comments submitted by the Western Energy Climate Coalition and the Coalition are available at Docket ID 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 information been 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 of the public comment period. 6 EPA's Finding hinges materially upon the 

reliability, independence, a..11d scientific objectivity of the IPCC assessments and related synthesis 

reports. But the Disclosures and subsequent cascade of revelations of defective science by the 

IPCC over recent weeks show that these assessments and related synthesis reports relied in 

substantial part upon flawed data and were predicated on the policy and political priorities of the 

IPCC, which are different from those established for EPA under the Clean Air Act. 

These facts fit squarely within the mandate for reconsideration contained in Section 

307(d)(7)(B). Therefore, EPA must reconsider its Endangerment Finding, and should suspend 

any regulatory activity premised upon the flawed Endangerment Finding until the 

reconsideration is complete. 

III. EPA'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS BASED UPON FLAWED DATA. 

One of the central assertions underlying EPA's Endangerment Finding is that global 

temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last hundred years and that "unprecedented" 

warming has occurred over the last several decades. In its 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 estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906-2005)." TSD: Section 4(b). 

6 When the Disclosures were made public, the Coalition immediately supplemented the record on December 4; 

2009, with this new information. See Exhibit E, EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-11686. EPA announced 

fmalization of the Endangerment Finding on December 7, 2009, and the Coalition's supplementation was not posted 

to the docket until December 22, 2009. The Administrator has not demonstrated she considered the Coalition's 

supplementation in making her Finding, and so the Coalition hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of its 

December 4, 2009, comments and the accompanying materials into this Petition for Reconsideration. 

5 

L 
This specific temperature finding depends upon a handful of temperature databases, one 

of which is maintained by CRU in conjunction with the Hadley Center at the UK Meteorological 

(Met) Office. This temperature dataset, known as "HadCRUT," served as a primary data source 

for the IPCC' s fmding of global warming. Other CRU datasets directly and indirectly underlie 

the IPCC findings on related climate indicators, including the CRU TS2.1 and CRU TS3 .0 

dataset of monthly maximu..m a..nd minimu..m temperature, precipitation, rainday counts, vapor 

pressure, cloudiness and wind speed.7 In fact, according to CRU, the HadCRUT dataset has 

provided many researchers with "basic data for a whole range of studies." Exhibit B. 

The Disclosures demonstrate that at least some of the CRU datasets are fundamentally 

compromised, which undermines the "whole range" of climate science directly dependent on 

those datasets. 8 The IPCC relied on both the flawed CRU datasets and the resulting flawed 

science, and EPA, in turn, based its Finding on the IPCC.9 As such, the CRU data form the 

primary basis for EPA's determination that "unprecedented" warming has occurred in recent 

decades. See Exhibit Band TSD. These data are also used to verify climate model outcomes. If 

the data are flawed, so too are the models and studies that rely upon those data. Therefore, 

because EPA based its Finding of future potential hann in large part on flawed datasets, EPA 

must reconsider its Finding. 

7 These datasets are cited by the IPCC as Mitchell and Jones (2005). 

8 For a full accounting of the history of Climategate and its implications, see Exhibit F, 

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/. 

9 CRU is an "acknowledged primary data source by climate scientists around the world," and its "staff have been 

heavily involved in all four [IPCC] assessments, probably more than anywhere else relative to the size of an 

institution." Exhibit B. EPA, in turn, relies "most heavily" 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 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program."). 

6 
A. The CRU Data Are Not Reliable or Reproducible, and So Cannot Form the 

Basis ofEPA's Finding of Anthropogenic-Induced Warming 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 of what CRU personnel describe as 

"fudge factors" to "massage" data. For example, the file BRIFF A_ SEPT98 _ E.PRO reveals the 

programmer "Appl[ied] a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!," and literally labeled 

several of the adjustments as "fudge factors." 10 Exhibit A. 

Elsewhere, the programmer asserts in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file that, in the 

absence of data 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 scientific judgment premised on "very artificial," "fudged," and 

"made up" data. Because these Disclosures demonstrate that at least some of the temperature 

data managed and maintained by CRU were "fudged" or "made up," EPA must reconsider 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 CRU programming code are 

remarks contained in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, which, in part, documents a CRU 

programmer's creation of fraudulent data when an "update" station matches a "master" station 

by WMO [World Meteorological Organization] code, but the data are "unpalatably inconsistent." 

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 of the adjustments contained in this file. 

7 
station codes for the update station data, thus deliberately fabricating non-existent temperaturerecording stations. The programmer 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. It will allow bad databases 

to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really 

don't think people care enough to fix 'em, and it's the main reason 

the project is nearly a year late. · 

Exhibit A. He then admits, "You can't imagine what this 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 of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always 

will be)." Id. 

The programmer goes on to explain, 

False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 

digits) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a number is found with 

no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there 

is no central repository for WMO codes- especially made-up ones 

-we'll have to chance duplicating one that's present in one of the 

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 of data manipulation, 

including creation of false temperature stations, undercuts the credibility of the CRU databases 

and requires EPA to reconsider its Endangennent Finding. 

3. CRU cherry-picked data to create a warming bias in the temperature 

record. 

Prompted by the Disclosures, scientists have uncovered other issues related to CRU' s 

dataset, including evidence that CRU likely injected an artificial warming bias into the 

8 

L 
temperature data. 11 For example, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic 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 warming theory. 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 only twenty-five 

percent (25%) of the available Russian weather stations, many of which supplied incomplete data 

but supported the global warming hypothesis. Id. In contrast, data from Russian stations that 

' 

provided complete observations, but that did not support the global warming hypothesis, were 

discarded. Failure to include those stations created 0.64 °C more warming than if all the raw data 

had been employed. Id. 

EPA has not even attempted to independently examine documentation of the temperature 

records and supporting computer algorithms, but instead has accepted the CRU data and output 

at face value, based entirely on the assertion that the data were "peer reviewed." But the 

Disclosures' revelations that the underlying data were flawed, "fudged," and cherry-picked in an 

attempt to support a pre-determined outcome wholly undermines EPA's assumption of validity. 

EPA erred in equating "peer review" with scientific accuracy and legitimacy, as evidenced by 

the fact that the alleged "peer review" was performed by 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 that the University of East Anglia's CRU 

violated the UK's Freedom of Information Act by refusing 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 of the 

climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. The 

University of East Anglia breached the Freedom oflnformation Act by refusing to comply with requests for data 

concerning claims by its scientists that man-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 CRU programmer admits 

the CRU data are without integrity: 

OH F[ ---] THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, 

and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another 

problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There 

is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues 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 in the 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 contain monthly files. 

CO BAR AIRPORT A WS [data from an Australian automatic 

weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993! 

Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship 

gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulationapparently 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're using an off-the-shelf product 

that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. ... Was too much 

effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time 

to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix 

it too. Meh. 

Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem ofthe tmin and 

tmax databases not being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if 

worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU 

databases in working order?! ! " 

10 
The programmer concludes by noting 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 of this 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 of manual and semi-automated interventions that I 

simply cannot just 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 it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface 

temperature dataset and kept only the so-called "value-added" data. Exhibit J, 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/. Thus, at the present 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 in the face of the spirit of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Data Quality Act. 

EPA has no choice but to end its reliance on the scientific analysis and assessment reports -

including the IPCC reports- that used or relied in any fashion upon the flawed, inaccurate, 

unreliable, corrupted and/or subsequently-destroyed CRU data. See Tex. Oil & Gas Ass 'n v. 

EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 935 (5th Cir. 1998) (a "regulation cannot stand if it is based on a flawed, 

inaccurate, or misapplied study"). 

B. The Unreliability of the CRU Data Renders Unreliable Any Study Based on 

that Data. 

Although the Administrator has 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 the public record consists primarily of "synthesis products" and "assessment _ 

reports," which are in turn summaries of scientific studies performed by others. The CRU data 

12 See, e.g., EPA Response to Comments, Volume 11: 2-3. 

11 

-

' 
supported a "whole range of studies" in climate science and were heavily used by the IPCC in 

preparing its assessment reports. See Exhibit Band footnote 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 other bodies evidently 

employed the flawed data, 13 it is not apparent what (if any) valid, untainted science remains in 

EPA's administrative record. Indeed, by failing 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. 

It is incumbent upon EPA to assemble an administrative record that is free of flawed or 

questionable data. Without such a record, the public and the courts are deprived of any ability to 

assess whether there is a valid basis for EPA's Finding. EPA cannot simply assert, without 

explanation, that there are "multiple lines of evidence" that are free of taint. See EPA Response 

to Comments, Volume 11: 3. EPA has not publicly identified and separated any flawed CRU 

data from the hundreds of studies that refer to or are based on that flawed data. Nor has EPA 

determined the extent to which the CRU data influenced or underlay the IPCC assessments. 

EPA therefore acts arbitrarily when it merely asserts, without documentation or explanation, that 

its Finding is independent of any defective data. As the D.C. Circuit has stated, "The EPA 

claims it made a reasonable choice-and it may be right-but simply to 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. Petroleum Inst. v. Castle, 665 F.2d 1176; 1186-87 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("Of course the 

13 See, e.g., U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009, n.44, 45, 49-53 (citing IPCC for assertions that human 

activities have caused recent global warming). 

12 
Administrator's conclusions must be supported by the record, and [ s ]he may 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 of the temperature 

data cited by EPA. The climate scientists EPA relies upon often "peer reviewed" each other's 

work and collaborated to limit the persons reviewing their work to those who shared their policy 

agenda. These are not the objective, arms-length relationships that give the peer review process 

scientific integrity. See infra, Section V. 

Under Office of Management & Budget (OMB) guidelines applicable to scientific 

support for agency decisions, this manipulation of the peer review process destroys any 

presumption that "peer review'' alone is sufficient to insure all of the databases are independent 

and free of bias, deliberate or inadvertent. See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 

Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity oflnformation Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 

Fed. Reg. 8452, 8454-55 (Feb. 22, 2002) (noting that the presumption of objectivity normally 

accorded to peer-reviewed information is rebuttable based on a persuasive showing in a 

particular instance). Given the lack of objectivity demonstrated by some of the key scientists 

upon whom EPA relies, EPA must now independently reconsider all of the 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 

I 
dataset, along with Thomas Karl (and NOAA colleagues) who maintained the NCDC (National 

Climatic Data Center) dataset, sent, received, or were copied upon scores of the 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 of their 

respective datasets and discussing disparities among them. See, e.g., Exhibit A, 92608742l.txt, 

May 7, 1999; and 939154709.txt, Oct. 5, 1999. The extent to which these very close 

relationships affected the manner in which the separate databases and homogenizing algorithms 

were created is not fully disclosed in the current record. However, the cliquish nature and lack 

of objectivity oftllis so-called peer review process eliminates EPA's ability to assume the 

databases are valid, merely because they have been "peer reviewed." 

There are numerous and recently-released studies documenting significant warming 

biases in the temperature databases that, in light of the Disclosures, reveal the fruit of this 

manipulated process.

14 For example, adjustments made by the Global Historical Climatology 

Network (GHCN) 15 in Darwin, Australia, transformed a temperature trend falling at 0.7°C per 

century to one that was warming 1.2°C per century. Exhibit W, 

http:/ /wattsupwiththat.com/2009 I 12/08/the-smoking-gun-at -darwin-zero/. In Darwin, raw data 

was averaged from three temperature monitoring stations; data from one station had remained 

untouched, while data from the other two stations had been adjusted not only to change the 

degree of the trend, but also the direction of the 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; 

Exhibit N, 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, Soon et al. 

2004; and Exhibit V, Watts 2009. 

15 The Global Historical Climatology Network database contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure 

data for thousands of land stations worldwide, and it is used and referenced by NOAA's NCDC and NASA's GISS. 

It is also been employed in several international climate assessments, including ~e IPCC's Fourth Assessment 

Report. 

14 
stair-stepped upward "adjustment" of approximately 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 of raw temperature 

data with homogenized temperature data "adjusted" by the New Zealand national weather 

service, the National Institttte of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIW A). E){..bibit X, Treadgold 

2009. There, a widely-known graph prepared in the 1980s by Dr. Jim Salinger, formerly of the 

CRU, has long served as the basis for establishing global warming in New Zealand. That graph, 

attached as Exhibit X to this Petition, shows a steady wanning trend of rising temperatures in 

New Zealand from early in the twentieth century through the year 2000. Recently, however, the 

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition tested Dr. Salinger's analysis of the 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 in warming. Jd. 

Faulty temperature monitoring has also created a warming bias in the temperature 

records. A dramatic reduction in the number of monitoring stations reflected in the current 

databases used by IPCC and EPA, combined with the relocation of instruments, likely 

contributed to false warming trends over the entire globe, as reported by the Moscow Institute of 

Economic Analysis and others. See Exhibit I. See also Exhibit Y, D' Aleo & Watts (2010). 

These marked discontinuities in the temperature monitoring stations likely skew global 

temperature records and create erroneous warming trends in the data. 

15 
All of these studies take on increased importance in light of the Disclosures, which not 

only call into question the key CRU dataset, but also serve warning that some other climate 

scientists have fallen afoul of the temptation to "fudge" data. EPA has no basis to rule out 

whether other datasets have been "fudged," whether purposefully or not, because EPA has not 

independently evaluated the data. 

EPA's assertion that global temperatures have risen markedly in recent years as a result 

of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been further undermined by an important study just 

released by NOAA, which attributes much of the alleged warming in prior decades to water 

vapor. Exhibit Z, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 0/20100128 watervapor.html. In 

fact, according to Susan Solomon, lead author of the study, the findings indicate that human 

emissions may have a considerably smaller role in climate change than previously thought. 

Exhibit AA, http://www.ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasa-water-vapor-largely-responsibleglobal-warming-012910. Again, this recent NOAA study, which corroborates the views of many 

scientists that water vapor is the primary GHG that influences warming, has not yet been 

considered by EPA. By itself, the significant new study requires the reconsideration mandated 

by Section 307(d)(7)(B). 

IV. EPA UNLAWFULLY 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 that these assessment reports 

include "consensus conclusions" based on the "body of scientific literature" and "undergo a 

rigorous and exacting standard of peer review." !d. In fact, however, the Disclosures 

demonstrate that the IPCC assessments were driven by policy priorities outside the Clean Air 

16 
Act. 16 Recent media reports have also documented numerous breakdowns in the IPCC process 

in favor of advancing policy objectives masquerading as science. 17 EPA has therefore 

unlawfully sub-delegated authority to a foreign agency with different policy priorities and relied 

upon invalid 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 of global 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 of the science 

and the IPCC, which were not always the same." Exhibit A, 1177890796.txt, Apr. 29, 2007 

(emphasis added). Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section ofNational Center 

for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and lead author of a chapter in the 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 of pressure to produce a clean picture of "apparent unprecedented 

warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data," yet Briffa admitted that, "I believe that 

the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago," which is contrary to the IPCC 

16 As noted in footnote 2, the IPCC is comprised of members from the United Nations and World Meteorological 

Organization, including nations from a broad spectrum of economic, energy, development and social circumstances 

and goals. The United States is a member of the UN and IPCC, but the needs and goals of the U.S. (and the 

judgment and expertise of EPA) obviously are not necessarily the same as those of the IPCC. 

17 EPA cites to the IPCC's Procedures for Preparation, Revievv, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval, and Publication 

of the IPCC Reports (1999) to justify the use of assessment reports and show that IPCC has a formal drafting and 

review process. (EPA Response to Comments, Volume 1: 9). EPA relied on the stated policies and procedures for 

the IPCC report process, yet EPA has thus far failed to publicly evaluate whether the procedures and processes were, 

in fact, 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 EPA must re-evaluate its heavy reliance on the 

assessment reports based on this new knowledge. · 

17 
position. Exhibit A, 0938018124.txt, Sep. 22, 1999. As Christopher Landsea, a fonner IPCC 

scientist and a leading expert on hurricanes and cyclones, stated, 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." 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 

temporarily resigned 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 on the relationship 

between human activity and global warming. Jones wrote, "I can't see either of these 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. 

The pressure to conform to a perceived "global warming" consensus also led to 

manipulation of data to produce the outcome IPCC authors wanted. Emails and computer code 

contained in the 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," "reduce the 

ocean blip," and "contain the medieval warm period." .See, e.g., Exhibit A, 843161829.txt, Sept. 

19, 1996 (Gary Funkhouser, of the University of Arizona, writing to Briffa, "I really wish I could 

be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve 

trying to milk something out of that"); Exhibit A, 1163715685.txt, Nov. 16, 2006 (Briffa noting 

18 

L 

i1 
that "the PCl time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in 

the last 150 years," and that "this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine 

growth and C02 is, at the very least, arguable."); Exhibit A, 1254108338.txt, Sept. 27, 2009 

(Tom Wigley, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, (UCAR) strategizing "to 

partly explain the 1940s warming blip," and noting that "if we could reduce the ocean blip by, 

say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean- but we'd still have to explain 

the land blip ... It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left 

with 'why the 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 not to "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 of those who might potentially try to distort 

things ... "); Exhibit A, 0939154709.txt, Oct. 15, 1999 (Osborn discussing how data are truncated 

to stop an apparent cooling trend that appears in the results); Exhibit A, 1054736277.txt, June 4, 

2003 (Mann noting "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP' [Medieval Warm 

Period]"). 

Perhaps the most egregious example of manipulation to get the "correct" political result 

comes from a November 1999 email in which Phil Jones, CRU's former director, boasted, "I've 

just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the 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, between proxy 

temperature data derived from tree rings and data from instrumental temperature measurements. To deal with this 

divergence, Jones describes his technique of disguising the temperature declines in the proxy data by simply 

replacing such data after 1961 with instrumental temperature measurements, which trended upward over time. In 

short, rather than objectively report 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. 

19 
manipulate 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 similarly illustrate efforts by IPCC scientists to advance the 

anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Most notably, new reports show that the IPCC's prediction 

of a "very high" probability Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 was not grounded in 

science but was 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 of the report's chapter on Asia, Dr. Murari Lal, said 

he was aware the statement did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research, but "thought that if 

we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some 

concrete action.") 19 

Recently, new revelations of errors, omissions or lack of valid 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 (IPCC reports alleging 

mountain ice reductions in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were based on unsubstantiated 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 In the wake of the 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 over perceived shortcomings of the IPCC's processes for compiling its reports. See Exhibit HH, 

http:llvvww. telegraph. co. ukl earth/ environment/climatechange/715 7 5 90/India~fOrms-new-climate-change-bodv. html. 

20 
(Prof. Chris Field, current lead author ofiPCC's climate impact team, states he "cannot find 

support" for claim in IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report that global warming could cut rain-fed North 

African crop production by up to 50% by 2020); Exhibit LL, 

http://www. timesonline. co. uk/tol/news/ environment/ article? 000063 .ece?token=null&offset=O&p 

age= I (IPCC's attribution of an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather-related 

events to global wa..rming misconstrued underlying report's findings, which found insufficient 

evidence of a 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 of other IPCC errors, including flaws in a 

diagram used to illustrate energy potential from wave power, and erroneous reports that half the 

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 considerable pause, and cry out for the kind of thorough-going reconsideration 

needed to ensure EPA's ultimate determination is based on sound science and valid data. 

The end result is the policy-driven agenda of a foreign entity substituting for the 

"scientific judgment" required of EPA under the Clean Air Act. Courts have held that subdelegations of decision-making authority to outside parties is improper for exactly this reason. 

"[W]hen an agency delegates power to outside parties, lines of accountability may blur, 

undennining an important 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 risk that these parties will not share the agency's 'national vision and perspective,' 

and thus may pursue goals inconsistent with those of the agency and the underlying statutory 

scheme ... aggravat[ing] the risk of policy drift inherent in any principal-agent relationship." Id. 

at 565-66 (internal citations omitted). 

Sub-delegation by 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 American public. The actual bases for 

EPA's Finding that unprecedented and dangerous global warming exists is not the 

Administrator's independent "scientific judgment," but rather the result of an international 

"intergovernmental" process and agenda. EPA has not made its own independent and objective 

analysis and assessment of all of the pertinent data and science. Instead, EPA has merely 

"rubber-stamped" the IPCC's conclusions with only "vague [and] inadequate assertions of final 

reviewing authority." Jd. at 568. 

This renders EPA's reliance on the IPCC an unlawful sub-delegation of its regulatory 

responsibilities to an outside, non-U.S. entity, and provides a separate legal basis as to why EPA 

must reconsider the 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 if it does not exercise its own judgment 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 of an outside body's actions, an 

agency unlawfully delegates its authority). At this juncture, the only proper course for EPA is to 

reconsider its Endangennent Finding in its entirety, and to refrain from taking any further 

regulatory action based on that Finding until the reconsideration process is completed. 

22 
V. THERE IS NO TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS WHEN THE PEER REVIEW 

PROCESS IS COMPROMISED. 

As discussed above, EPA justifies its heavy reliance on the "science" of others, rather 

than on its own scientific determinations, solely on the basis that such "science" was "peer 

reviewed." Yet the Disclosures reveal an orchestrated effort by a clique of climate scientists to 

subvert the peer review process and stifle scientific debate. The Disclosures show that certain 

IPCC and CRU scientists interfered with the editorial boards of scientific journals, boycotted 

various journals, suppressed publication of dissenting viewpoints, and collaborated together to 

gain favorable peer review. For example, lead IPCC authors and key climate scientists including 

Wigley, Jones, Mann and Mike Hulme (of the University of East Anglia) worked together to 

remove the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and Climate Research for publishing, 

or considering publication of, articles that contradicted their views on climate change. Tom 

Wigley wrote, "If you think that Saiers [GRL editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if 

we can find documentary evidence of this, 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 of Mr. Saiers, Mann, author ofthe now-discredited hockey stick 

graph, boasted, "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ 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 the best way to 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, of the Lawrence 

Livennore National Laboratory in California, went over the head of the editor of Weather, with 

23 
Jones threatening the Royal Meteorological Society Chief Executive that he would no longer 

submit information to Royal Meteorological Society journals if the Weather editor refused to 

"back down." Exhibit A, 1237496573.txt, Mar. 19, 2009. Mann20 has also encouraged his 

colleagues to change their opinion of the widely-read, well-respected journal Climate Research, 

and considered proposing that they "no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Exhibit 

A, 1047388489.txt, Mar. 11, 2003. 

These scientists did not act as a group of independent, objective scientists who welcomed 

public airing of the complex science issues and embraced legitimate criticism. Instead, these 

scientists tried mightily to allow only one perspective on the global warming debate to be 

published and legitimized. EPA then relied heavily on this manufactured "scientific consensus" 

to disregard any contrary views or contrary evidence to its Finding of anthropogenic 

"endangerment.'' This utter breakdown of the scientific method is epitomized by Wigley's 

expression of concern that individuals with genuine scientific credentials, but who disagree with 

the IPCC position, "could ... ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer 

review process ... " and that "How to 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 that may prove to be scientifically erroneous or unsubstantiated. For instance, serious 

scrutiny cannot be expected from hand-picked, wholly-supportive reviewers, yet Jones 

encouraged a like-minded author to submit the names of five scientists as recommended peer 

reviewers because they "know the sorts of things to say." Exhibit A, 1249503274.txt, Aug. 5, 

20 Mann, who features prominently in many of the emails discussing removal of journal editors and suppression of 

alternate viewpoints, has received nearly $2.4 million in stimulus money to study issues related to global warming 

through grants awarded to the National Science Foundation. To date, no effort has been made to suspend or 

reconsider Ma~'s stimulus grants. Exhibit NN, 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 10001424052 7 48 7045410045 7501 0931344004278.html#printMode. 

24 

. 

~ 

/ 
2009. Conversely, prominent scientists have stated for years that their efforts to publish contrary 

science have been stifled and that they have seen their grant money dry up and research positions 

become unavailable to them. These same scientists claim they have been publicly ridiculed and 

their reputations made to suffer if they take issue with the supposed "consensus" on the 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, on occasion, publicly disagreed with 

IPCC conclusions, has described how differing points of view were suppressed, observing: 

There has been, however, in my view an unfortunate change over 

time where reviewers who disagree with already published work 

recommend rejection of subsequent 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 of differing viewpoints, in 

turn, has dissuaded prominent scientists from seeking publication in peer-reviewed journals. As 

noted by one IPCC author, "even here [in the UK] they [climate change skeptics] don't seem to 

be bothering with journals 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 of the documented flaws in the peer review process used by the IPCC and some 

of its 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 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0 171-0322 (p. 2-5), a purported "consensus" is irrelevant to 

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 -but to make a sound scientific judgment within the parameters of the Clean Air Act. 

25 
exists regarding alleged "unprecedented" global warming simply because the science was "peer 

reviewed." As the IPCC process amply illustrates, '"scientific consensus' can be created through 

purchased research and the manipulation of a 'scientific' literature .... " Haack, Peer Review and 

Publication: Lessons for LaYVJlers, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 789, 818 (2007) (internal citations 

omitted). Given the Disclosures, EPA cannot rely on synthesis assessments simply because they 

were "peer reviewed," any more than it can discredit contra..lJ' science merely because it was not. 

Consistent with its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act, EPA must make its own independent 

assessment and scientific judgment. Here, such an assessment and judgment has not yet 

occurred. The major deficiencies identified in this "peer review" process demands that EPA 

reconsider its Finding. 

VI. EPA'S FINDING VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND 

THE DATA QUALITY ACT. 

A. EPA's Finding Violates the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Disclosures demonstrate that much of the 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. 

The AP A requires agency decisions to be supported by a public record that is sufficiently 

transparent to permit the public to understand the basis of the 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 Food Prod. Corp., 568 F. 2d 240, 251 (2d Cir. 1977) (agreeing that "unless the scientific 

data relied upon by the agency are spread upon the public records, criticism of the methodology 

used or the meaning to be inferred from the data is rendered impossible"). Under Section 553 of 

the AP A, "[i]n order to allow for useful criticism, it is especially important for the agency to 

26 
identify and make available technical studies and data that it has employed in reaching the 

decisions to propose particular rules." Am. Radio Relay League, 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, EPA relies instead on 

summaries and assessments from third parties. These summaries and assessments rely on 

scientific studies, which in tum rely on 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 or parameters." Exhibit C. Thus, 

EPA is at least two steps removed from most of the "technical studies and data" upon which its 

Finding is based. By relying on such summaries and assessments, rather than actual technical 

studies and/or underlying data, EPA has failed to comply with the law. EPA does not even 

purport to have reviewed the data or data adjustments relied on by IPCC or other agencies. 

Likewise, neither the raw nor homogenized data are posted to the Endangerment rulemaking 

docket or have been made available for public review by EPA. In short, EPA's Finding 

concludes that anthropogenic global warming endangers public health, yet it has failed to provide 

the public with the technical studies or data on which it places primary and significant weight to 

support those assertions. 

The D.C. Circuit has criticized this type of "hide the ball" tactic, where the public cannot 

easily review or verify 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 in which the agency treats what should be a genuine interchange as mere 

27 
bureaucratic 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 also Am. Radio Relay League, Inc., 524 F.3d at 237. 

Now that the Disclosures have been made public, the "accuracy of important material in the 

record is in question," including both underlying data and peer reviewed studies, which should 

be made available for public comment. Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 

1403 (9th Cir. 1995). It is now incu..mbent on EPA to disclose this information; allow fullyinformed comment by the public; and then, taking those informed comments into account, 

reevaluate its Finding. 

In fact, however, it is doubtful EPA can disclose the technical studies and data upon 

which it so heavily relies, not only because Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU deliberately 

withheld data from both EPA's and the public's review, but also because some ofthat raw data 

has now been destroyed. Jones often discussed how CRU and IPCC could evade requests for 

information and freedom of information (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 oflnformation Act 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 covered by agreements with 

outsiders, and that CRU would be "hiding behind them." Exhibit A, 1106338806.txt, January 

.21, 2005. 

Further, at least one scientist engaged by EPA to review and approve EPA's TSD was 

aware that underlying data were being concealed under the pretext of standing 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 of the NASA temperatures records. NASA and its Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies have dragged their feet for nearly three years in responding to a Competitive Enterprise 

28 
the review of EPA's TSD, was aware that data supporting EPA's conclusions were being hidden 

from the Agency. In 2008, 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 

been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not 

part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to 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 of at least one scientist who knew data were being withheld from review by EPA 

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 why the IPCC processes relied upon 

by EPA are wholly inadequate under comparable American disclosure laws as well. While IPCC 

may not be subject to U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, EPA is, and it cannot 

evade its statutory obligations under FOIA and the AP A by offshoring its work to 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, Congress passed the Data 

Quality Act (Section 515(a) of the 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 of intention to file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 

to compel NASA's production of this information. See Exhibit QQ, 

http:l/wwv>'.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-ciimate-dispute. 

29 
agencies follow established guidelines designed to promote transparency, scientific discipline 

and accountability. 

Guidelines promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Data 

Quality Act provide guidance to federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility and integrity of information, 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 of transparency about data and methods to facilitate 

the reproducibility ofthat information. To that end, agencies are required to ensure sufficient 

transparency about data and methods- including those analyses of data that combine infonnation 

from multiple studies - such that an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified 

member ofthe public. 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 requirement by 

OMB, particularly when data cannot be reproduced 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. I d. In response to these OMB guidelines, EPA published its Guidelines 

for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, 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 of transparency for such 

30 
information regarding the source of the 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, which provides in pertinent part that: 

If scientific and technological information is developed and used 

by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made 

available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there 

should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and 

use of scientific and technological information in policymaking. 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 74 Fed. Reg. 10671 (Mar. 

9, 2009) (emphasis added). 

EPA has violated the requirements of the Data Quality Act, 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 in the data it relied upon. Instead, EPA 

attempts to avoid these requirements by sub-delegating the risk assessment regarding greenhouse 

gases to other entities, in particular to the IPCC. As discussed in detail above, the Disclosures 

reveal how EPA's unlawful sub-delegation to the IPCC undermined compliance with the 

transparency and data quality requirements of American law. Indeed, EPA could not possibly 

have complied with these requirements, given that the IPCC authors deleted information and hid 

behind foreign laws to avoid disclosure of key data supposedly supporting "influential" science 

detenninations. 

Because EPA was never provided (and thus never reviewed) key data from CRU, the 

Data Quality Act requirements governing data transparency 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 raw temperature records in the United States Historical Climatology 

31 
the work performed by the 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 record here fails the 

tra.."'lsparency and accou.."'ltability requirements of the law and thereby violates the Data Quality 

Act. 

VII. CONCLUSION. 

The Coalition requests EPA convene a proceeding for reconsideration to (1) thoroughly 

reevaluate EPA's heavy reliance upon the IPCC reports which have been called into fundamental 

question; (2) prepare a complete and objective record for the reconsideration proceeding which 

contains all the relevant scientific data, studies, and viewpoints and is cleansed of questionable or 

one-sided data; (3) obtain and fully disclose all computer programs, data and algorithms used to 

"homogenize" all temperature records upon which EPA relies; (4) subject the temperature 

records and programs to an independent review by qualified and objective scientists and 

statisticians; (5) determine whether or not there is any statistically valid 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 of potential contaminants, concluded the 

effects of such adjustments "produce a significantly more positive, and likely spurious, trend in the USHCN data." 

Exhibit K. Another study could not successfully replicate the long-term Northern Hemispheric surface thermometer 

temperature trends ofiPCC's Third Assessment Report. Exhibit U. The study concluded that the inability to 

replicate the trend was likely a result of "data padding" used to smooth and filter data, which was not incorporated in 

the reports of the data trends, and it recommended avoidance of"subjective data-padding procedures." Id. 

32 
or rulemakings which are based upon the Endangerment Finding until these fundamental 

requirements of sound 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 A venue, 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. South Temple, Suite 2000 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Eric Groten 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 

Austin, TX 78746-7568 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

33 
INDEX OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED 

A. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, FOI2009 Disclosures (first available 

Nov. 19, 2009) (Disclosures). [A CD of the Disclosures submitted in lieu of a hard 

copy.] 

B. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, "History of the 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/SPECIALINVES TIGA TI ON -Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-sendthem.html (printed February 9, 2010). 

E. Addendum and Supplementation of Record to Coalition Comments on EPA's Proposed 

Finding of Endangerment 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/2 009 I 12/1 7 /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 of adjustments to the United States Historical 

Climatology Network (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 of HumanInduced 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. pdf and 

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 of Surface-Based Weather 

Stations, Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends," Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological 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 of heat content," Global and Planetary 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 of Uncertainties 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 of long term (>40 

year) trends ofNorthern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperture: A note of caution," 

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 New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, "Are we feeling warmer 

yet?" November 25, 2009; available at 

http:/ /www.climateconversation. wordshine.co .nz/2009 I 11 /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-01291 0 (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 of Dangerous 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, "How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus," The Wall Street Journal, 

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/7157 5 90/Indiaforms-new-climate-change-body.html (printed February 10, 201 0). 

R. Alleyne, "Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological '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/ article 7 000063. ece?token=null&offs 

et=O&page=1 (printed February 10, 2010). 

l) r::. ... ay anrl "Q T ear-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 at 

http://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 1000142405274870454100457501 0931344004278.html# 

printMode (printed February 10, 201 0). 

R. Lindzen, "Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists 

into silence," The Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal Archives, April 12, 2006; 

available at http://opinionjoumal.com/extral?id=11 0008220. 

R. Carter, "Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global 

Warming?" Economic Analysis and Policy 38 (2008). 

S. Dinan, "Global warming controversy reaches NASA climate data" The Washington 

Times, December 3, 2009; available at 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute.