United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 

TN RE: 

ENDANGERMENT AND 

CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR 

GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) 

OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT; FINAL RULE, 

74 FR 66,495 (DEC. 15, 2009) 

Petition For Reconsideration 

of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 

the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 

February 12, 2010 

and the Competitive Enterprise Institute 

S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder 

Nongovernmental International Panel on 

Climate Change 

1600 S. Eads St.# 712-S 

Arlington, VA 22202 

singer@nipcc.org 

Kenneth A. Haapala, Exec. Vice President 

Science and Environmental Policy Project 

9634 Boyett Court 

Fairfax, VA 22032 

(703) 978-6025 

Ken@Haapala.com 

Sam Kazman, General Counsel* 

Competitive Enterprise Institute 

1899 L Street, NW, l21

h Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 331-2265 

skazman@cei.org 

*contact person for petitioners 
Petition for Reconsideration 

To the Environmental Protection Agency 

Regarding Its Final Rule 

Concerning Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 

Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 

Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20004 

Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-62071), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460 

Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 

Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004 

SUMMARY 

On December 7, 2009, EPA issued its final determination that carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. In our view, this Endangerment Finding 

was unjustifiably based on unscientific reports by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) and scientifically indefensible global temperature datasets. For the reasons set 

forth below, that failing has become even clearer in light of disclosures and other events which 

occurred in the last three months, and which continue to occur. 

During the period for public comment, which closed on June 23, 2009, the Nongovernmental 

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and the Science and Environmental Policy 

Project (SEPP), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) requested, in oral testimony and 

written submissions, that EPA withdraw its proposed Endangerment Finding because it was not 

based upon the best science available. Rather, the proposed finding was based on scientifically 

flawed studies. As we and numerous others pointed out, EPA's proposed finding and its 

Technical Support Document (TSD) relied almost exclusively on the reports of the IPCC, 

particularly the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007. But both the IPCC report 

and EPA's proposal and TSD suffered from major flaws: 1) they omitted critical temperature 

data; 2) they were inconsistent with principles of science and violated EPA's Information 

1 
Quality Guidelines 1

; 3) they lacked tested theory; 4) they were based on invalid methodology; 

and 5) they relied upon invalid models that fail basic tests and had no predictive power. 

As shown below, those flaws have become even more evident in light of new developments, to 

the point that EPA's failure to take those developments into account would rob its decision of 

any semblance of validity whatsoever. 

I 

THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS PETITION OCCURRED 

AFTER THE END OF EPA'S COMMENT PERIOD, AND IN LARGE PART AFTER 

EPA ISSUED ITS FINAL RULE. GIVEN THEIR IMPORTANCE, THEY CLEARLY 

MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), states: 

"If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 

impracticable to raise such an objection within [the period for public comment] or if the 

grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome 

of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule 

and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information 

been available at the time the rule was proposed." 

EPA's comment period closed on June 23, 2009. Since that time, a series of disclosures and 

reports have revealed the scientifically improper and highly questionable procedures and 

practices used by the IPCC and by the organizations upon which it relies. Of special note is the 

improper treatment of datasets relied upon by the EPA, which renders any conclusions based on 

them scientifically indefensible. For these reasons, a proceeding for reconsideration is clearly 

warranted. 

II 

IT IS CLEARER THAN EVER THAT EPA'S CLAIM OF UNEQUIVOCAL WARMING 

IS SCIENTIFICALLY INDEFENSIBLE 

EPA justifies its claim of unequivocal warming in the last few decades by stating: 

"The global surface temperature record relies on three major global temperature datasets, 

developed by NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom's Hadley Center. All three show 

an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years, with the greatest warming 

occurring over the past 30 years." 

74 FR 66,517. But recent reports demonstrate highly improper treatment of these datasets, 

making EPA's claim of warming trends scientifically indefensible: 

1 EPA Information Quality Gui4elines. EPA.( accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http://www .epa.gov/0 U ALITY /informationguidelines/ > 

2 
• In mid-August the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia 

announced that it no longer holds the original raw data to its datasets, but only the 

modified data which CRU terms as "value-added."2 This data dumping was 

confirmed by the Sunday Times (London) on November 29, which noted that the 

CRU had received repeated requests for this data under the British Freedom of 

Information Act. The CRU action renders independent review and verification of the 

150-plus year temperature trends published by the Hadley Center-CRU impossible -

a clear violation of basic principles of science and was found by the British 

Information Commissioner's Office to be a violation of the British Freedom of 

Information Act. 3 4 

• On December 15, 2009, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (lEA) reported 

that the Hadley Center-CRU probably tampered with Russian climate data and that 

the Russian meteorological station data do not support human-caused global 

warming. It was well established that Hadley Center-CRU had dropped many stations 

in the colder regions of Russia presumably because these stations were no longer 

maintained. The Russian lEA stated that the stations still report temperatures, but that 

the reports are ignored by Hadley Center-CRU. Only 25% of the reporting stations 

are used and they are in population centers that are influenced by the urban heat 

island effect. Rural areas were also ignored, giving the data yet another warming 

bias. " lEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the 

anthropogenic global-warming theory." "The scale of global warming was 

exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the 

world's land mass. The lEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature 

data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration." Consequently, the Hadley 

Center-CRU dataset has been highly compromised; reporting global surface 

temperature trends that are unreliable and likely have a strong warming bias of an 

unknown magnitude. 5 

• On January 14, 2010, meteorologist Joe D' Aleo and computer expert E. Michael 

Smith reported that NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the 

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) had dropped many 

meteorological stations from their data bases in recent years. The dropped stations, 

2 CRU Data Availability. Climatic Research Unit. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http :/jwww .cru. uca .a c. u k!cru/da ta/aya ilabilit y/> 

3 Leake, Jonathan. Climate Change Data Dumped. November 29,2009. Times Online. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http://www.timcsonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece> 

4 Bale, David. New Twist in UEA Climate Change Row. Jan 28, 2010. Norwich Evening News 24. (accessed Feb 12, 

201 0) <http://www .eve ni ngnews24.co.uk!content/eveningnews24/norwichnews story.aspx?b and=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand =ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED2~,;i 20 

J an%20201 0%20 10%3A05 %3A43%3A3 70> 

5 What the Russian Papers Say. Dec 16, 2009. Rianovosti. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http:/ien.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html> 

3 
many of which continue to function properly, are generally in colder climates. The 

actions by NOAA -NCDC and NASA-GISS compromise their datasets, making their 

reported temperature trends unreliable and likely to have strong warming biases of 

unknown magnitude.6 

• On January 291

h, a major new study by meteorologists Joe D' Aleo and Anthony Watts 

was issued, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception ?

7 Its basic 

conclusion is that "global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted 

to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, 

such surface data should be ignored for decision making." See fn.7 at p.5. Among its 

specific findings are the following: 

• "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been 

so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be 

credibly asserted there has been any significant ' global warming' in the 20th 

century." 

• "All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems 

that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature 

trends." 

• "Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more 

than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer 

reporting." 

• "There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higherlatitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of 

warming." 

• "Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper citing, and 

inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming." 

• "Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the 

overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island 

contamination alone." 

• "Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial 

stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their 

findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a 

manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature 

record." 

• "Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical 

changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal 

ocean and solar changes." 

• "An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature 

record of CRU, GISS and NCDC ' chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to 

c. Global Warming: The Other Side- segment 4, KUSI News. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http:Uv.'vvw.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html> 

7 D'Aieo, Joseph and Anthony Watts. Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?. Jan 29, 2010. 

Science and Public Policy Institute. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy driven deception.html> 

4 
climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the 

evaluations. "' 

See fn.7 at p.4. The report gives specific case studies of data manipulation, such as the 

fact that NASA modified 20% of the historical record 16 times in two an one-half years 

ending in 2007. This manipulation was not random. To the contrary, every instance of 

manipulation resulted in temperature trends that appeared to increase faster than they did 

in reality. 

• In late January 2010, the findings of D' Aleo, Watts, and Smith were confirmed by 

investigative journalists. They found, for example, that in the 1980s 600 Canadian 

monitoring stations were used in the NOAA dataset. Now only 35 are used, with only 

one above the Arctic Circle. Yet, Environment Canada reports that the government 

maintains 1400 stations with over 100 above the Arctic Circle. 8 

The Hadley Center-CRU, NOAA-NCDC and NASA-GISS are the three organizations that report 

global surface temperatures and whose temperature trends were specifically cited by the EPA in 

its Endangerment Finding. Yet, as shown above, these organizations have dropped many 

reporting stations, generally in colder climates (that is, at higher latitudes or higher elevations). 

None of these organizations have given any scientific explanation for selectively dropping 

stations. The global surface temperatures and temperature trends announced by these 

organizations have thus been highly compromised and are likely to have strong warming biases. 

As a result, EPA's reliance on them is not scientifically defensible. 

By contrast, EPA's Endangerment Finding ignores satellite datasets which, unlike surface 

datasets, provide comprehensive coverage of the globe. The satellite dataset produced by the 

University of Alabama, Huntsville is freely available for independent review and verification. 

This dataset meets the critical principle of science of repeated, independent verification. These 

data show modest thirty year warming trends in the middle to upper latitudes of the Northern 

Hemisphere, little warming of the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere, and distinct cooling of 

the Antarctic region - hardly the endangering global warming proclaimed by EPA. 

On October 5, 2009, CEI filed a petition to reopen the comment period in light ofCRU's 

admission that it destroyed the original data. On December 15, 2009, EPA dismissed this petition 

by stating: 

"The Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature record (referred to as 

HadCR UT) is just one of three global surface temperature records that EPA and the 

assessment literature refer to and cite. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) also produce temperature records, and all three temperature records have 

been extensively peer reviewed. Analyses of the three global temperature records 

produce essentially the same long-term trends as noted in the Climate Change Science 

8 Foot, Richard. Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say. Jan 20, 2010. National Post. (accessed Feb 

12, 201 0) <http://\l\l-ww.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231 > 

5 
Program (CCSP) (2006) report " Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere;· 

IPCC (2007), and NOAA's study 5 " State ofthe Climate in 2008".;; 

74 FR 66,504. But as demonstrated above, all three datasets have been extensively 

compromised. In the words ofthe D'Aleo-Watts study: 

"NOAA's NCDC, in Asheville, NC, is the source ofthe Global Historical Climate 

Network (GHCN) and of the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN). These two 

datasets are relied upon by NASA's GISS in New York City and by Hadley/CRU in 

England. Since all three use the same data, all three have experienced the same 

degradation in data quality in recent years. In the following email, CRU's Director at the 

time, Phil Jones, acknowledges that CRU mirrors the NOAA data: 'Almost all the data 

we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the GHCN archive used by the 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center. '" 

D' Aleo-Watts at 9 (italics added). 

III 

THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE THAT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES 

THAT UNDERCUT GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS WERE SUPPRESSED 

Starting on November 19, 2009, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public. These emails 

reveal coordinated efforts in both Britain and the US to suppress independent studies that are 

contrary to IPCC conclusions of human-caused global warming. Thus, the lPCC scientific 

review process has a systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favor of human-induced 

warming. Consequently, the EPA Endangerment Finding is severely undermined by a systematic 

bias of an unknowable magnitude in favor of human-induced warming.9 10 

IV 

RECENT DISCLOSURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT 

UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS AND REPORTS WERE UTILIZED BY THE IPCC 

Recent reports reveal the IPCC AR4 includes many claims without a scientific basis: 

A) Tree Ring Data, Melting Glaciers and Injured Rainforests 

• At the October, 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Professor 

Don Easterbrook demonstrated how tree ring data from Russia, which show a cooling 

after 1961, were artfully truncated in graphs presented in IPCC publications. (See 

attachment at p.12.) This truncation gave the false impression that the tree ring data 

agree with reported late 201

h Century surface temperature data, when in fact they did 

9 Johnson, Keith and Gautam Naik. Lawmakers Probe Climate £mails. Nov 24, 2009. The Wall Street Journal. 

(accessed Feb 12, 2010) <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html> 

10 Monckton, Christopher. Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!. Nov 30, 2009. Science & Public Policy Institute. 

(accessed on Feb 12, 2010) <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html> 

6 
not. This artful deceit, now exposed, indicates that the IPCC Assessment Report 4 

(AR4) is scientifically questionable. The CRU emails leaked in November confirmed 

that this deception was deliberate. 

• In November, 2009 an internationally recognized expert on Himalayan glaciers, V.K. 

Raina, produced a comprehensive study that totally contradicted the IPCC reports on 

Himalayan glacier melts, showing those reports to be flimsily documented 

exaggerations. Even though this report had been independently documented 11 , the 

Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, dismissed it as "voodoo science." But in 

January, 2010, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4 chapter on 

Asia, admitted that AR4 had deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the 

Himalayan glaciers. "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." This 

admission demonstrates that the AR4 is a political document and not a scientific 

one.

12 

• In late January, 2010, additional reports revealed that IPCC claims that warming 

would cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs 

came not from peer reviewed science but from publications by environmental groups 

such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. Further, claims of glacier melts in 

the Andes and the Alps came from anecdotal comments in a magazine article and a 

master thesis. Thus, the IPCC claim that the findings in AR4 are based on peer 

reviewed science is false. 13 14 15 

• On February 3, 2010, Jairam Ramesh, the Environment Minister Government of 

India, one of the nations most impacted by the politicized IPCC claim of disappearing 

glaciers, announced that India is forming its own independent climate change review 

panel that will not depend on IPCC reports. "There is a fine line between climate 

11 It was reviewed by Professor Cliff Oilier, School of Earth and Environment, University of West Australia for the 

Government of India. Dr. Oilier provided his review to SEPP. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2010frWfW%20January%2023.%2020JO.pdf> 

12 Rose, David. Glacier Scientist: I knew data hadn 't been verified Jan 24, 2010. Daily Mail. (accessed Feb 12, 

201 0) <http://www .dai I ymail .co. uk/news/article-1245 636/G lacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified. htm I> 

1

·' Booker, Christopher. Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC'sfailures. Jan 30,2010. Telegraph. (accessed Feb 

12, 201 0) <http www.tclegraph.co.uk/commcnt/columnists christopherbookerD l358'> Arnaz n~:.atc

evidcncc-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html> 

14 Laframboise, Donna. Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report. Jan 28, 2010. Nofrakkingconscnsus. 

(accessed Feb 12, 201 0) <http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/0llgrecnpcace-ancl-noh!!l-winni Ob:-

climatc 28.html> 

15 Editorial.· Climate debate needs facts, not anecdotes. Feb 3, 2010. NZ Herald. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http:/Niww.nzherald.co.nzjworld/news/article.cfm?c id=2&objectid=l0623715> 

7 
science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate 

evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,

11 Ramesh said. 16 

B) Harm to African Agriculture 

• On February 7, 2010 the Sunday Times reported on the extent to which false claims 

that warming will destroy rain based agriculture in Africa permeate IPCC findings 

and UN pronouncements. These claims were made in the IPCC's Synthesis Report: 

"This is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most 

important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its 

lead authors include Pachauri himself. 

In it he wrote: 'By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture 

could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to 

food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.' 

The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by 

Pachauri and Ban [Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general]. 

Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: 

'In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced 

by 50% by 2020.' In a speech last July, Ban said: 'Yields from rain-fed 

agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 

years.' 

This· weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's 

climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the 

report to support the claim. 

'I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find 

support for the statement about African crop yield declines."' 

The claim is in fact based on a non-peer reviewed 2003 policy paper written for a 

Canadian think tank. 17 

EPA repeats these unsubstantiated claims about the possible destruction of rain-based African 

agriculture in its TSD: 

"Agricultural production, including access to food, in many countries and regions is 

projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area 

suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons, and yield potential, 

•r• India to have own panel on climate change: Jairam Ramesh. Feb 4, 2010. Hindustan Times. (accessed Feb 12, 

201 0) <http://www .hi nduslanlimes.com/India-to-havc-own-panel-on-climate-changc-Jairam-Raml.!sh/H 1-Artidt: l505242.aspx> 

17 Leake, Jonathan. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. Feb 7, 2010. Times Online. 

(accessed Feb 12, 201 0) <http://www .ti meson! i ne.co.u kltol/news/envi ronment/article 7017907 .ece> 

8 
particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease. 

This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the 

continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up 

to 50% by 2020."18 

This is yet another example of how EPA's finding is based on political reports rather strictly 

scientific ones. 

C) More Destructive Storms 

EPA claims that global warming will lead to storms that are more intense and therefore more 

destructive: 

"The evidence concerning how human induced climate change may alter extreme 

weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse 

impacts that can result from such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the 

occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public 

health is expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the severity of coastal storm 

events due to rising sea levels." 

74 FR 66,497-98. The claim of increased storm severity is based on a similar contention by the 

IPCC in AR4. However: 

• On January 24, 2010, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly 

linked natural disasters to global warming. AR4 claimed that global warming is 

causing increases in property losses. Yet the Sunday Times discovered the published 

report upon which this claim was based actually stated: "We find insufficient 

evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and 

catastrophic losses."19 

This revelation is particularly devastating because it goes not only to EPA's failure to adequately 

review the false science of the IPCC, but also the failure of USGRCP and NRC to perform 

independent review. All three organizations accepted the IPCC findings as physical fact and the 

best available science, when it clearly was not either. For example, the NRC report "Potential 

Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation" starts by assuming that the worst of the 

IPCC findings are correct, especially the false link between warming and natural disasters. Then 

it exacerbates its incorrect approach by using IPCC models that have never been independently 

verified and therefore have no predictive power. From this it derives estimates of future damage 

to the US transportation system from global warming. This is not science, but wild speculation. 

The similar reports by the CCSP, which are incorporated by the USGRCP, are equally invalid. 

1

" TSD Table 16.1, p. 162. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http :1/v.n.w.• .t!pa. gov/cl imatechange/endangerment/downloads/Endangerment TS D .pdf#pa ge= 17 4 > 

19 Leake, Jonathan. UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Jan 24, 2010. Times Online. (accessed 

Feb 12, 201 0) <http://www .timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece> 

9 
In short, the scientific assessments of the USGRCP and the NRC, used by EPA to buttress its 

Endangerment Finding accepted the IPCC reports as definitive. Thus, these assessments are 

actually extensions of the IPCC findings, incorporating its faults and errors. Contrary to EPA 

claims, they do not provide any independent scientific support whatsoever. 

v 

CONTRARY TO EPA'S HIGH PRAISE FOR IT, 

THE IPCC REPORT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO BE A POLITICAL DOCUMENT, 

NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE 

In its final decision EPA described the IPCC report in glowing terms. In the agency's words, it 

was one of the three assessments that formed the Administrator's "primary scientific and 

technical basis of her endangerment decision ... " 74 FR 66,510. These assessments supposedly 

"represent the current state of knowledge on the key elements for the endangerment analysis" 

and "convey the consensus conclusions on what the body of scientific literature tells us." 74 FR 

66,511. They "undergo a rigorous and exacting standard of peer review by the expert 

community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review and acceptance." /d. 

EPA concluded its paean with this laudatory language: 

"It is EPA's view that the scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGRCP, and the NRC 

represent the best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on 

the scientific and technical issues before the agency in making an endangerment decision. 

No other source of information provides such a comprehensive and in-depth analysis 

across such a large body of scientific studies, adheres to such a high and exacting 

standard of peer review, and synthesizes the resulting consensus view of a large body of 

scientific experts across the world. For these reasons, the Administrator is placing 

primary and significant weight on these assessment reports in making her decision on 

endangerment." /d. 

The disclosures and events described above make it clear that EPA's characterization of 

the IPCC report is flatly wrong. Moreover, other disclosures demonstrate that, at heart, 

the report is a political document: 

• Among the CRU documents disclosed in November, 2009, is an email from Dr. Keith 

Briffa, CRU Deputy Director and an IPCC lead author: "I tried hard to balance the needs 

of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same ... " (April 29, 2007)(italics 

added)20

; 

• Another email, from Dr. Tom Wigley, an IPCC contributing author, states: "In my 

(perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model 

results by individual authors and by !PC C." (Oct. 14, 2009)(italics added)21

; 

20 Briffa, Keith. Email. Apr 24, 2007. (accessed Feb 12, 2009) 

<http://www .castangliacmails.com/cmails.php?eid= 794&filenamc= 1177890796. txt> 

21 Wigley, Tom. Email. Oct 14,2009. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) 

<http:/!v.,ww.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=l057&filename=1255553034.txt> 

10 
• At a conference during the week of February 8, 2010, organized by the UK newspaper 

Guardian, the paper posed this question to experts: "How to reform the IPCC?'' The 

article on the conference stated that "Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is 

started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the 

information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers (SPM] chapters. Is that 

right, the Guardian asked?" Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from Netherlands, 

responded: "The Nobel prize was for peace not science ... government employees will use 

it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of 

climate change." "For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for 

something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should 

change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never 

allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published 

scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists." (Italics 

added).22 

EPA continues to insist that IPCC is a scientific organization but people in the organization 

realize it is not. Rather, it is political policy organization that reviews and reports science that 

support its goals. 

v 

CONCLUSION 

New disclosures and studies, some as recent as last week, demonstrate that EPA's Endangerment 

Finding rests on unscientific and politicized documents that have no credibility. Because these 

revelations occurred after EPA's public comment period, and because they severe! y undermine 

the IPCC report and other studies relied upon by EPA, the agency's reconsideration of its final 

rule is not only warranted, but required. 

Respectfully submitted, 

S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder 

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate 

Change 

Kenneth A. Haapala, Executive Vice President 

Science and Environmental Policy Project 

<-"--..__.. ~?."t...Ct'.~ --... ___ 

Sam Kazman, General ounsel 

Competitive Enterprise Institute 

On behalf of all petitioners 

February 12, 2010 

22 Adam, David and Suzanne Goldenberg. How to reform the IPCC. Feb 10, 2010. Guardian. (accessed Feb 12, 

2010) <http://www.guardian.eo.uk/environment/2010/feb/1 0/ipcc-reform> 

11 
ATTACHMENT 

An Explanation of How lvfichael tdann Hid the Decline 

Graphs Presented by Professor Don Easterbrook 

O.l"C - ---

SOURCE: don.easterbrook@wwu.edu. 2009 Portland GSA Annual Meeting (18-21 October 2009) 

12 
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 

INRE: 

ENDANGERMENT AND 

CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR 

GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) 

OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT; FINAL RULE, 

74 FR 66,495 (DEC. 15, 2009) 

Supplement to 

Petition For Reconsideration 

of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 

the Science and Environmental Policy Project, 

February 16, 2010 

and the Competitive Enterprise Institute 

S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder 

Nongovernmental International Panel on 

Climate Change 

1600 S. Eads St.# 712-S 

Arlington, VA 22202 

singer@nipcc.org 

Kenneth A. Haapala, Exec. Vice President 

Science and Environmental Policy Project 

9634 Boyett Court 

Fairfax, VA 22032 

(703) 978-6025 

Ken@Haapala.com 

Sam Kazman, General Counsel* 

Competitive Enterprise Institute 

1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 331-2265 

skazman@cei.org 

*contact person for petitioners 
Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration 

To the Environmental Protection Agency 

Regarding Its Final Rule 

Concerning Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 

Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 

Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20004 

Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW ., 

Washington, DC 20460 

Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 

Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004 

Petitioners hereby supplement their Petition for Reconsideration (filed February 12, 2010) with 

the following points: 

I 

DR. PHIL JONES' LATEST STATEMENTS UNDERCUT 

EPA'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING 

On February 13th, a BBC interview with Dr. Phil Jones, head of the British Climate Research 

Unit (CRU), was posted, which revealed some major disagreements with EPA's Endangerment 

Finding and reversals of his prior views. 

For example, EPA states in its fmal rule that warming has continued in recent years, declaring 

that "eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001." 7 4 FR 66,517. 

But in answer to the BBC interviewer's question, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present 

there has been no statistically-significant global warming?", Dr. Jones replies "yes" (explaining 

that there has been warming, but that it was not statistically significant). 1 

1 BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones, Feb. 13,2010, 

http:/inews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85 J 1670.stm; see also Daily Mail, Climategate U-turn 

1 
Dr. Jones goes on to state that from.January 2002, there has been actual cooling, though it was 

not statistically significant. This appears to contradict his past statements on how the period 

200 1-07 was wanner than the previous decade? 

Dr. Jones' comments on the recent lack ofwanning are consistent with the views stated by at 

least three other scientists in the Climategate emails. 

• Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC coordinating author and head of the Climate Analysis Section 

at the National Center fo~ Atmospheric Research (Oct. 14, 2009): "The fact is that we 

can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."3 

• Dr. Thomas Wigley, IPCC contributing author (later in the above thread): " . .. here are 

some notes of mine on the recent lack ofwanning." 

• Dr. Stephen H Schneider, editor of the journal Climate Change (October 11, 2009), 

referring to ''the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis .... "4 

EPA states that "the greatest warming occur[ed] over the last 30 years." 74 FR 66,5 17. 

But according to Dr. Jones, for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998, and 1975-2009, 

the warming rates did not show any accelerating trends. In his words, "the warming rates for all 

4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."5 

If there has been no change in warming rates, this contradicts one of EPA's basic contentions. 

During this same period, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases levels 

dramatically increased-according to EPA, to "essentially unprecedented levels". 74 FR 66,517. 

Yet if increasing levels ofthese gases did not produce a clear acceleration of warming, then the 

role of these gases as a major driver of temperature becomes even more dubious. 

as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995, Feb. 14, 

2010, 

http://www .dailymai I. co. uk/news/article-1250872/Cl imategate-U-tum-Aston ishment-scientistcentre-global-warm ing-emai 1-row-adm its-data-organ ised.htm l?ITO= 1490 

2 New24.com, Earth still warming, Jan. 11, 2008, 

http://www .news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/ I 132/ I249c?74c6df42cca 1302d82e4236ef6/ I 1-

01-2008-06-57/Earth still warming# 

3 1255532032.txt, 

http://www .eastangl iaemai ls.com/emails.php?eid= I 054&fiiename= 1255532032.txt 

4 125531833l.txt, 

http://www .eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid= 104 7 &filename= 125531833 l.txt 

5 See fn.l. 

2 
As one appellate court has noted, a situation such as this "on its face, raises questions about the 

reliability of the EPA's projections. While courts routinely defer to agency modeling of complex 

phenomena, model assumptions must have a 'rational relationship' to the real world. See, e.g., 

Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1265 (D.C.Cir.l994)." Appalachian Power Co. v. 

EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

II 

THE IPCC'S CLAIMS REGARDING HURRICANES, ADOPTED BY EPA, ARE NOW 

IN EVEN MORE SERIOUS DOUBT 

A new report on hurricanes, independently reviewed and released only today, finds no increase 

in storm or hurricane frequency over the last 60 years. The report, 1999-2009: Has the Intensity 

and Frequency of Hurricanes Increased?, by Dr. Les Hatton, Kinston University, London, 

concludes: 

"Over the periods 1999-2007 or 1999-2009, it can be concluded that there 

is no evidence to support that the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes, 

major hurricanes or proportion of hurricanes which mature into major 

hurricanes has changed in the last 60 years". 6 

ld at 11 (emphasis in orginal). The report goes on to note that "the match between the data and 

the IPCC 2007 analysis is poor at best." ld at 15. 

This not only undercuts EPA's increasingly questionable reliance on the IPCC report7

, it also 

undermines EPA's own claims regarding the supposedly increased risk of storms and hurricanes. 

See 74 FR 66,498. 

Ill 

EPA's HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE USE OF THE ABSURDITY CANON IN ITS 

PROPOSED TAILORING RULE REQUIRES THAT THE AGENCY RECONSIDER ITS 

ENDANGERMENT FINDING 

In comments filed with EPA on December 28 and 30, 2009, the National Association of 

Homebuilders (NAHB) pointed out that EPA's proposed Tailoring Rule8 involved an 

unprecedented use by the agency ofthe "absurdity canon" of statutory construction. In NAHB's 

words: "Apparently for the first time in its 40-year history, EPA proposes in the Tailoring Rule 

6 http://www .leshatton.org/Documents/H urricanes-are-not -getting-stronger. pdf; see also 

http://www.leshatton.org/Hurricanes 20 I O.html 

7 The Register (UK), Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned, Feb. 15, 2010, 

http://www .theregister.co.uk/20 l 0/0'> I 15/hatton on hurricanes/ 

8 EPA, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 74 

FR 55,292 (Oct. 27, 2009). 

3 
to invoke the absurdity canon of construction in interpreting a law it administers." NAHB, Legal 

Comments on EPA's Tailoring Rule and Interrelated Agency Actions, at 1.9 

The Tailoring Rule proposal was issued on October 27, four months after the close of the public 

comment period in EPA's Endangerment proceeding. The agency's discussion of the absurdity 

canon in its proposal makes it seems as ifthe agency is doing little out of the ordinary. See 74 

FR 55,306-07. However, as the NAHB comments point out, EPA's approach here is anything 

but ordinary. 

And it is doubly extraordinary, given that EPA provided no real warning about the inevitability 

of these problems to the Supreme Court when, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), it 

considered the agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. In fact, the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is not mentioned in that decision, and the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards program to which PSD applies is mentioned only in the 

dissent. Jd. at 559 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 

As NAHB points out, in Massachusetts the parties advocating regulation actually contended that a 

ruling in their favor would have no implications at all for the PSD program: 

"The Supreme Court briefs filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the other 

petitioners in Massachusetts clearly took the position that resolving the Massachusetts case 

did not require a resolution of questions about the applicability to greenhouse gases of the 

Clean Air Act's stationary source control provisions. Indeed, the petitioners in Massachusetts 

went farther and insisted that the Court could decide the case in their favor, possibly paving 

the way for regulation ofGHGs under Title II ofthe Act, without any consequences for 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards program at all." 

NAHB comments, Attachment Bat 7. As for EPA, NAHB states that "while the Solicitor General's 

brief in Massachusetts did note that the NAAQS program could not be coherently applied to GHG 

emissions, that brief also importantly noted (immediately after making that observation) that '[t]he 

petition for rulemaking in this case did not request that EPA promulgate NAAQS for greenhouse 

gases, but instead sought regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.'" 

/d. NAHB concludes, in short, that, given 

" ... that the Massachusetts petitioners argued that the NAAQS issue was not before the 

Court; and that the Solicitor General's briefing did not contest that point; that neither the 

petitioners, nor Solicitor General, nor the Massachusetts Court mentioned the PSD and Title 

V programs; and that neither side nor the court mentioned the absurdity canon, all arguments 

relating to the Title V, PSD and NAAQS programs clearly remain unresolved in the wake of 

Massachusetts." 

/d. But in our view, the implications of this omission are even more serious. If EPA had forthrightly 

admitted to the Supreme Court that construing the Clean Air Act to cover carbon dioxide would end 

9 NAHB's comments, Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11690.1 , were filed in both the 

Tailoring Rule proceeding and in several other related proceedings. They can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetaii?R=0900006480a75f96 

4 
up forcing EPA to resort to the absurdity canon to deal with that construction, the outcome in 

Massachusetts might well have been totally different. 

EPA created this dilemma through both its briefing in Massachusetts and its wholly discretionary 

decision to issue its Endangerment Finding. Like the Supreme Court's decision, that finding contains 

no mention of any need to resort to the absurdity canon. EPA's dubious resort to that canon for the 

purpose of re-writing, by administrative means, the clear and unambiguous numerical thresholds in 

the Clean Air Act is a de facto admission of error. When an agency's own actions create absurd 

results, it should not be able to evade those results through ad hoc means. EPA's need to paper over 

the statutory contradictions that it itself created constitute a powerful, independent ground for 

reconsidering the action that has brought the agency to this point-the Endangerment Finding itself. 

IV 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those previously set forth in Petitioners' Petition for 

Reconsideration (filed February 12, 2010), EPA should reconsider its Endangerment Finding. 

Respectfully submitted, 

S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder 

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate 

Change 

Kenneth A. Haapala, Executive Vice President 

Science and Environmental Policy Project 

Sam 

-~Kazman, Genera

/2;l Counsel 

-~ ~ Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Counsel for Petitioners 

February 16,2010 

5