This comment letter response contains two parts:   

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA‐assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.  

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.  

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues.  However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID.  Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).  

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments.  Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter.  As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text.  The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.   

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.  

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.
Global Warming Blues 

By Norman Rogers

I spent my working life as a computer engineer and entrepreneur. I have a long history of tilting 

at windmills having been involved in numerous causes and crusades during my life. So when my 

retirement started it was natural for me to look for something to get involved with. I picked 

global warming. Since I had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in physics I felt that I could 

deal with the technical side of global warming theory. As a computer expert I though that I 

would have insight to the giant computer models of the earth's climate that are central to global 

warming science.

I smelled a rat right from the beginning. As a 20-something activist I had a job as the Director of 

Operations for Zero Population Growth, Inc. ZPG was a 70's environmental organization that at 

one time had 25,000 members. I knew that professional environmentalism has an ethics problem. 

Exaggeration promotes contributions.

In my quest to investigate and understand global warming I joined the American Geophysical 

Union and the American Meteorological Society. At scientific meetings, like an anthropologist, 

I cultivated native informants.

I learned that most scientists don't have a good grasp of the big picture because they are narrowly 

specialized and don't think about much outside of their immediate interests. The scientists that do 

have a grasp of the big picture can be divided into global warming advocates, skeptics and the 

majority of passive observers who play it safe by not taking a position. The global warming 

advocates have the upper hand and the most power. The skeptics, including quite a few excellent 

scientists, are marginalized and frankly persecuted. They are whistle blowers. A lot of skeptics 

are retired. The warmers can't cancel pensions, at least not yet. The most famous promoter of 

global warming, James Hansen, wants to put his opponents on trial for crimes against humanity.

Global warming scare stories are good for global warming science because the scare stories 

promote research funding. If it weren't for the scary predictions these scientists would be toiling 

in a poorly funded and obscure branch of academic science. As the distinguished climate 

scientist Richard Lindzen noted in an article, fear is more effective than gratitude for inducing 

financial support. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC is a branch of the United Nations and 

is very much under the control of climate doomsters. If climate doom were not impending the 

IPCC would not be necessary, thus it is a bureaucratic imperative that the IPCC predicts climate 

doom. The IPCC and Al Gore were jointly given the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The peace prize is 

given by politicians for political reasons and the 2007 recipients have shown themselves to be 

accomplished politicians. The history of the Nobel Peace Prize does not inspire confidence. 

Some of the recipients have been crackpots (Linus Pauling) and others fraudsters (Rigoberta 

Menchu). Gore seems to me to be a combination of both.

The increase in temperature predicted by the global warming computer models is about 3 degrees 

Celsius. This isn't very scary, so the promoters of global warming alarmism come up with 

additional scare stories. For example, there will be more hurricanes, the ice caps will melt, the 

polar bears will die, the oceans will become acid and kill the coral, and weather will become 
more extreme. These stories have much less scientific support than the warming theories, and 

each has been rebutted[i]. Scare stories attract attention and it is much more difficult to refute 

scare stories than it is to create them. By the time one scare story becomes discredited a new 

scare story is spread. 

A red flag in the global warming debate is the left-right split. Generally people on the left tend to 

believe in global warming and those on the right tend to be skeptics. The New York Times thinks 

global warming is settled science while the Wall Street Journal thinks it is greatly exaggerated. If 

global warming is a science question, why should this be so? The answer is that both the right 

and the left recognize that global warming has political consequences. The left recognizes that 

global warming presents an opportunity to increase government revenue via carbon taxes and to 

justify the taxes as sin taxes. The right recognizes the same thing. 

Organized science has relinquished its traditional role as an objective advisor to policy makers 

and has instead become a lobbyist for its own interests. The interests of big science happen to 

coincide with the ideological goals of the green movement. The resulting coalition has 

impressive political power.

The global warming advocates have a campaign of slander against the global warming skeptics. 

Al Gore calls them people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged. The 

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that skeptics are committing treason against 

the planet. 

The science behind the IPCC predictions and the scary claims is incredibly weak, really 

bordering on fantasy. As I began to understand what the IPCC and the computer climate 

modelers were doing it dawned on me that the entire enterprise is highly speculative and 

inconsistent. Certainly great progress has been made in understanding how the climate works in 

the last 40 years. But that understanding has not reached the point where we can have any faith 

in future predictions of the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since vast efforts and 

billions of dollars have been invested in huge computer climate models the scientific 

organizations are forced to defend the usefulness of the models. The way in which the IPCC has 

utilized climate models to make predictions is really quite comical, although it takes a lot of 

study and wading through a molasses-like report to get to the point where it starts to seem funny. 

I have a 40 page article on my website if you would like to know the details.

Kevin Trenberth, no global warming skeptic, is one of the most prominent climate scientists in 

the world. He is a senior scientist and the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He said this about climate models.

... None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate 

states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the 

state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any 

recent time in any of the IPCC models. ...

He is confessing that climate models leave a lot to be desired.
Clouds are very important, but it is generally accepted that the treatment of clouds by the 

computer models is very poor. This is neatly summarized by a few lines from the Judy Collins 

song Both Sides Now.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now

From up and down and still somehow 

It's cloud's illusions I recall

I really don't know clouds at all

The 20 or so climate models used by the IPCC don't agree with each other as to how much 

warming would take place due to doubling CO2. The range is 2 to 4-1/2 degrees Celsius. There 

are perfectly plausible theories, based on observations, not models, that the warming would be 

far less, from scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Stephen Schwartz and Roy Spencer.

A 3 C degree increase in global temperature is the difference between Chicago and St. Louis. 

Further the models, if you believe them, predict that the change in temperature mostly will take 

place at night or in the winter when it is often too cold anyway. Between International Falls, 

Minnesota and Key West, Florida the difference in annual average temperature is 23 degrees 

Celsius, 7 times greater than the IPCC's 3 degree predicted change for doubling CO2.

The climate of the 20th century is inconsistent with the climate models and in fact can't be 

explained within the IPCC framework. The climate of the 20th century is characterized by 

warming from 1910 to 1940 followed by cooling between 1940 and 1970 and then more 

warming from 1970 with an apparent cessation of the warming during the last decade. This is 

illustrated by the graph below. 
The attempts to make the 20th century climate consistent with the computer models simply don't 

work. Explanations that the warming is inhibited by aerosols or heat being diverted to the ocean 

are very improbable. 

Controlling our own carbon dioxide emissions accomplishes practically nothing if the Chinese 

and Indians don't control theirs. They play along as long as it seems profitable. The Chinese and 

Indians are like the natives who happily attend church services as long as the missionaries are 

giving out free dinners.

Green electric power from windmills and solar energy is impracticable. Its expensive and due to 

the erratic nature of sunshine and wind, solar and wind power must be backed up by duplicate 

power plants or by energy storage systems that are as expensive as duplicate power plants. It 

sometimes seems that the advocates of solar power don't realize that the sun does not shine at 

night. The much acclaimed Kyoto Treaty for the reduction of CO2 illogically does not give CO2 

reduction credit for CO2-free nuclear power plants, something put in the treaty in response to 

green lobbying. 

The global warming skeptics should to be given some respect and a chance to make their case. 

An appropriate solution would the establishment of a B team financed by the government and 

allowed to present the other side of the argument. If such a B team were established and given 

respect, in my opinion, the global warming movement would collapse because its foundations 

would be exposed as being weak and corrupt.
The author has provided a long technical article on IPCC use of climate models to fit the 20th

century: Worse Than the Hockey Stick
This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it 

contains copyrighted material that may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view 

or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be 

made as follows: 

In person/writing: 

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 

Washington, DC. 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
Non-Aerospace Research Que

of a Designer/Flight Test Engin

Things you probably do not know about R

By Burt Rut
• Efficiency - Home and Automoti

Interest is technology, not tree-hugging.
• Anthropogenic Global Warming

– Focus is data analysis, interpretation an

how it is used/miss-used.

– Complex data from disparate sources -

similar challenge to the engineering Experimental Test experience.

– Not a Climatologist’s study; more from 

the view of a flight test guy who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation.
Who are the ‘Experts’ on AGW?

Bias among the debaters 

• Nearly impossible to find one without bias

– 1. Climatologist; Academia or Government.– 2. Climatologist or spokesperson; Oil/coal/etc ind– 3. Politician, Mainstream Media, Lawyer, Hollywo– 4. Those who plan to profit from the crisis.– 5. Those who demand a Socialist society.– 6. Those who fear expansion of Government con– 7. Global Governance foreigners (UN and Americ

other global adversaries).

– 8. Meteorologists
Who are the ‘Experts’ on AGW?

Bias among the debaters 

• Nearly impossible to find one without bias

– 1. Climatologist; Academia or Government.– 2. Climatologist or spokesperson; Oil/coal/etc indu– 3. Politician, Mainstream Media, Lawyer, Hollywood– 4. Those who plan to profit from the crisis.– 5. Those who demand a Socialist society.– 6. Those who fear expansion of Government contro– 7. Global Governance foreigners (UN and America’

global adversaries).

– 8. Meteorologists* And other criminals
Population Bomb; starvation/crowding (1950s and 1960s)

Run out of Oil; (1950 to present)Silent Spring; DDT (1960s 70s)Global Nuclear War (1950s thru 1980s)Global cooling; Ice Age/starvation (1895 to 1930 and 1956 to 1976)Hole in the Ozone layer; CFC-cause? (1980s)Acid Rain (1980s)Nuclear Winter; nuke-caused ice Age (1980s 1990s)Y2K; power/communication meltdown (1999)Global Warming; earth burns & seas rise (1929 to 1969 and 1983 to 20Climate Change; any change is catastrophic (2003 to present)

Scares - Two Distinct Types

The Peoples’ “Fault”

Not The Peoples’ “Fault”

Flying saucer invasion (1940s)Report from Iron Mountain; peace scare (1960s)Volcano - Caused Atmospheric Pollution; crops die/ice ageSolar - Caused Climate Disaster; ice age, warming, radiationAsteroid and Comet Strikes; climate crisis/mass extinctions
My Background - Flight Test Data Analysi

The more complex or uncertain the data, the mo

judgment is needed to interpret and the more susce

the conclusions are to bias
Greenhouse Gas Warming

The Alarmist’ Key Ammunition;

Humans add CO2 to Atmosphere

That ‘pollution’ drives temperatures to Catastrophe
Global Atmospheric CO2 is now Very Lo
Selection of only the 

circled data points that 

support your theory

Measured Atmospheric 

Manipulation of d

Blue line is modern, accuraMauna Loa Observatory, H
Assessing the Blame for Warming

1960 to 2000 shows good correlation of warming and Carbon emissio

Not true when you look at all the data.
No Intended Deception Here

One data source; Thirty-year 

Temperature history

Data source mix without deception

Many data sources

Roman and medieva

perspectiv

You would never see thi
Two Types of Presentation Fraud

Scale changes and data source mixing
Surface Temperature Measureme

Number of surface thermometer stations and 

temperature vs. date (1950 to 1999)

When the Soviet Union rapidly collapsed in 1989/91 they dmaintain many of their surface temperature measuring statThousands of the cold stations were closed.
A Note About Gore’s hero, NASA’s Chief Ala
medieval Warming

Gore PresentaActual Tempersame time per

Honest Presentation?

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's 

Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have 

representation of factual presentations on how dangerou

warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to l

the solutions are. ”Al Gore, Grist Magazine, May 9, 
But, Gore does not ‘Manufacture’ D

He has lots of help

• His ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is from UN/IPCC, 2

(now discredited)

• Cherry Picking Data

– Present only data that supports ‘The Cause’– Focus on Katrina, but ignore thunderstorm statis– Show only melting ice, but ignore ice growth– Quote only the highest-possible crisis predictions– Focus on CO2 fears; ignore its benefits– Never discuss any climate good news

• “Statistics are like a bikini. What they revea

suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”
UN IPCC Data Manipulation

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_baretter.pdf

1990 to 2001; a complex, lengthy path of data 

manipulation, driven by non-scientific issues.

Refer to link below and to the book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” for details
UN Data Manipulation
The Media Does Not Investigate

They just listen to the Alarmists and then report that GW is “wor

the UN predictions”
High-slope, 20-year Periods are Not Unique 
Opposite conclusio

data, thus it might confidence.

Confidence restored by four sets of separate, reliable data -Hadley, Goddard, U of Alabama and Remote Sensing
Recent Global Warming has NEGATIVE correlation wi

(two sources of the best data)
Atmospheric Temperature over 410,000 year

Data from the Vostok ice cores

• Total historical variance is less than today’s day-night delta.• Time period encompasses tens of thousands of severe volcano 

greenhouse gas issues swamping any human emission capabili

• The ‘norm’ is lengthy ice ages; warm periods are brief.• The recent warm period is the most stable; 12k years at a pleas

temperature.
Analysis of the Vostok Ice Core Data

• Encompassing sinusoid is 2 deg C cooler than present (red line).• Average real temperature is 5 deg cooler than present (green line).• Aggressive second-derivatives are at warm peaks (red circles).

• The planet naturally avoids over-temp in a robust, aggressive way.

• The Big Risk is too cold (the planet’s natural preference is severe ice 

massive extinctions).
Hurricanes, floods, lightning, tornados, sea ice, glaciers, weather d

seas - Alarmists Claim Crisis Without showing Data. Pg 1
Show Me the Data Pg2
Show Me the Data Pg3
Show Me the D
Why “Global Warming” is now called

“Climate Change”

• The quiet realization that the new data do

not fit the model predictions.

– No Greenhouse Gas Model predicted the rec

cooling. No model could have predicted the medieval warming or the ‘little ice age”.

– The branding change coincided with the end 

“scientific consensus”*.

• ‘Climate Change’ is the world’s safest be

always has changed and always will chanTo call Climate Change a Crisis is silly.

* Of course, Consensus has nothing to do with Science and 

has nothing to do with Consensus. 
The More Important Natural Glob

Warming/Cooling Controls

• The important climate thermostats are too chaot

model: 

– Precipitation and Cloud formation; A <2% pre

change more than offsets a doubling of CO2cannot be predicted, even short term.

– The Pacific heat vent; observed and powerfu

cannot be modeled. It is also a stable, tempecontrol thermostat.

• Only the trace greenhouse gas (CO2) can be bla

human behavior.

• Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, ove

CO2, but even the EPA will not call water a “pol
Observations

• Man can measure the past, but cannot code a comput

model to predict future global temperatures.

• Man has not demonstrated a reliable ability to himself 

global temperatures.

• Warm periods are good, not bad. It would be beneficia

have more warming than present.

• CO2 is not a pollutant.

• Warm periods have been brief and they are not the ‘no

planet state.

• Oil/coal are called ‘non-renewable’; but every decade s

an estimated increase in reserves. We will not run ou

will merely slowly switch when costs force a move to chalternatives.

• If Man, in the future, achieves a capability to change gl

temperatures, he will most certainly use that new technwarm the planet, not to cool it.

• Is the debate over?
Recommendations

• Drop CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and Cap & Trade legi

is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronalarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness Cap and Trade taxes.

– As proposed, most new jobs are for Government regulation/

bureaucracies. The process is already ripe with fraud (85% would be free, 15% auctioned).

– As proposed, the huge spending would result in no benefit to 

planet.

• If the Government really wants to protect citizens from a p

planet catastrophe, then fund commercial R&D on systemdefend against Asteroid Strikes - the only real extinction tplanet has ever had and the only one in which Man can inhis intelligence and sweat to successfully defeat.

– Commercial R & D jobs would grow the economy, encourag

science/engineering education and have other lasting benef

Apollo).

This PowerPoint file is posted at: http://rps3.com/
Letter ID: 0325  

Commenter: G.H. Holliday  

Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.  

Letter ID: 0325 Comment ID: 27859 Letter Lines: 16 to 16  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: I request these attachments beassociated with Dr. Holliday comment submited 7 Sept. 2009.  

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.